Abstentions are generally hard to assess. Unless an MP is sitting in the House of Commons when a standing vote is conducted or announces that they will be abstaining, it’s not immediately obvious whether an MP has declined to vote for some reason of viewpoint or simply because they had another commitment and their vote was not going to be pivotal. It’s probably fair to say that MPs have abstained from voting for principled reasons without us ever knowing. (The last purposeful abstentions I can remember were on asbestos in 2011. Steven Fletcher abstained on an assisted-suicide bill in 2010.)

All of which makes Irwin Cotler’s principled abstention last night from the Iraq vote—coming as it did with a full explanation—a relatively novel happenstance.

“I have written ad nauseam almost on the responsibility to protect in general and in particular with regards to Syria … I was on record as, not only Canada joining an international coalition, but asking Canada to lead that coalition, to convene a UN security council urgent meeting, et cetera, et cetera. Therefore, I would have generally supported a resolution of that kind,” Cotler told me this afternoon. “So why wouldn’t I support something that supports my position? Well the answer is because this does not support it, but turns R2P on its head. Harper took the astonishing position to say that … with regards to Syria, if we’re going to go into Syria then it’ll be contingent on Assad’s agreement. As I said, this not only turns R2P on its head, it’s asking the criminal who should be in the docket or the accused for permission for us to engage in the very international military operation that he’s asking us to support. To me that not only was the theatre of the absurd on Harper’s part, but in fact it evinced a lack of understanding of the whole initiative that he was speaking about. And then to invoke the UN security council resolution … when in fact there was no UN security council resolution showed, again, a lack of understanding.”

Meanwhile, the NDP’s Charlie Angus is apparently unimpressed with the fact that the Green caucus (population: two) split on the Iraq resolution. (Whenever the NDP fusses over party unity, I’m reminded of Jack Layton’s decision to allow a free vote on the gun registry.) While Elizabeth May voted against, Bruce Hyer voted in favour, a decision he explains here (he did not speak to the resolution in the House).

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/irwin-cotlers-principled-abstention-on-iraq/feed/4Stephen Harper asks the GG to read him a bedtime storyhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stephen-harper-asks-the-governor-general-to-read-him-a-bedtime-story/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stephen-harper-asks-the-governor-general-to-read-him-a-bedtime-story/#commentsThu, 17 Oct 2013 01:01:59 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=432192And the government will live happily ever after

“Tell the Prime Minister you’ve got his back,” encouraged a note from the Conservative party, sent yesterday in advance of the Speech from the Throne.

Moments after the Governor General had concluded reading said speech, another beseeching.

“Tell the Prime Minister you’ve got his back—and help us seize Canada’s moment,” cheered a note.

You’ll forgive the Prime Minister if this makes him seem a bit needy. (For that matter, you’ll forgive the Prime Minister if this makes him sound like Justin Trudeau. “I’ve got your back,” Mr. Trudeau told his supporters in one appeal sent during the Liberal leadership race. “Now I need you to have mine.”) It’s just that this is the way of modern politics. And it’s just that Mr. Harper has had a rather difficult year and, for the last little while, every time he’s turned around to see who’s with him, his side has lost another person. First Patrick Brazeau, then Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright and Pamela Wallin, then Brent Rathgeber and, most recently, Dean Del Mastro.

“You won’t believe what the Press Gallery just did in Ottawa,” supporters were assured. “Some media decided to boycott an important speech by our Prime Minister – one where he laid out his vision for our country, before today’s Speech from the Throne.”

But wait, there’s more.

“Rather than send cameras to cover the Prime Minister’s speech, they attended the NDP’s meeting, and were welcomed with cheers and applause. We knew they wouldn’t give us fair coverage – but this is a new low for the Ottawa media elite.”

It is hard to imagine how the Ottawa media elite could have gotten any lower than whatever their previous low was, but presumably this is why we need to have the Prime Minister’s back. Because the Ottawa media elite insists on being in the room when he delivers a speech. And because Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau would turn this country into an impoverished hellscape run by drug-dealing public servants. Indeed, had they been present, the elites might have heard what Mr. Harper was trying valiantly to protect us from—the “$20 billion carbon tax,” the “reckless economic experiments with people’s livelihoods” and, of course, “legalizing drugs.”

So it was that the Prime Minister, let down by his senate appointees, abandoned by Mr. Rathgeber, undermined by Nigel Wright, hounded by the jackals of the press gallery, struggling against the opposition monsters lurking under the bed and missing a quarter of the popular support he once enjoyed, turned today to the Governor General, hoping to hear that his government was going to live happily ever after.

And so Grandpa Johnston pulled a book off the shelf and proceeded to read a rather long bedtime story.

It was a story of precariousness. Of a moment needing to be seized. Of needing to dare to do so. Of needing to make good on this opportunity. Or needing to understand that this chance that was ours. Provided we could find a way to reduce the number of emails systems that the government currently operates.

That was but one of 147 bullet points that here ensued. It actually drew a chuckle from the crowd of swells swelling the Senate.

Twenty-four of those bullet points were reminders of things the government has already done. Two bullet points involved the Pan Am Games.

There were commitments here to promote exercise, honour police dogs, lower the cost of adoption, improve food labels, stop genetic discrimination, resist the legalization of prostitution, fight the scourge of forced marriage, figure out what happened to the Franklin expedition, allow for the transportation of wine across provincial borders and prevent doctors from treating chronic heroin addicts with anything that you might think weird. The government vowed that it would “not hesitate to uphold the fundamental rights of all Canadians wherever they are threatened,” “continue to defend the seal hunt,” “take further action to improve air quality nationwide,” “continue to promote Canada as a world-class destination for international students” and “continue to create the conditions for new and better jobs for Canadians across all sectors of our economy.”

Having created a structural deficit, the government now proposes to pass a law that would require the government to balance the budget. Except when it needs to run a deficit. Despite screaming about the NDP’s plan to put a price on carbon, the government now says it will “enshrine the polluter-pay system into law.” It will get to those greenhouse gas regulations for the oil-and-gas sector that are twice overdue. It will make the changes to election law that were supposed to have been made more than a year ago. It will do something about the Senate, just as soon as the Supreme Court rules on how to go about doing it. It will remain tough on crime. It will continue to support the troops. It will keep you safe and comfortable and lower your cable bill. And it will complete a free trade deal with Europe. In fact, the Prime Minister is getting on a plane for Brussels tomorrow.

If you are worried about it, rest assured, the government is on it. And yet, the government will continue to cost less and continue to get smaller. To this Clintonian to-do list might a thousand fundraising appeals follow.

The Prime Minister sat at the Governor General’s knee and listened and no doubt thought pleasant thoughts and was soothed. And when it was over, an hour or so after it had began, the Prime Minister walked over to the House of Commons and sat there and listened as Nathan Cullen, the NDP’s House leader, complained that the government was behaving poorly in its attempt to reinstate legislation from the previous session. The Prime Minister eventually took his leave and the House carried on with the business of resuming business. The clock struck half past six, the allotted time for adjournment, before Charlie Angus, who most definitely does not have the Prime Minister’s back, could stand and accuse the Prime Minister of having misled the House back in June.

Under normal circumstances, however, a motion to do so is either adopted unanimously, or put forward as a stand-alone item, which can then be brought forward for debate, and, if necessary, a vote…

Instead, it appears that the government wants to put opposition MPs in the awkward position of having to choose between giving cabinet what amounts to a blank check to override the usual effect of prorogation, or forcing a full debate on the omnibus motion – at which point, of course, the Conservatives will almost certainly accuse them of trying to back out of the pro-parliamentary accountability measures that were unanimously endorsed by the House in June, and again at a special extra-sessional meeting of the procedure and house affairs committee last month.

The NDP leader wondered finally how the Prime Minister’s spokesmen could thus comment on this matter if they were not involved. Mr. Harper now at least clarified the extent of his staff’s ignorance.

“Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, it was Mr. Wright who made the decision to take his personal funds and give those to Mr. Duffy so that Mr. Duffy could reimburse the taxpayers,” the Prime Minister reviewed. “Those were his decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my office.”

Of that revelation (and thus the apparent contradiction between what the members of his office knew and what the Prime Minister told the House the members of his office knew), the Prime Minister pleaded ignorance.

But on Saturday, the Prime Minister told reporters “when I answered questions about this in the House of Commons, I answered questions to the best of my knowledge.”

Since a question of privilege takes precedence, the House will conceivably have to hear it before it can begin consideration of the Throne Speech. I’m told it will be Charlie Angus who gets the honour of raising the question.

In the matter of the $21,000 cheque, Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro is now facing four charges of violating the Canada Elections Act. Here is the official release from the commissioner of elections and here are the details of the charges.

There is no official word yet from Mr. Del Mastro’s office, but the NDP’s Charlie Angus has released a statement suggesting that Mr. Del Mastro be stripped of his parliamentary secretary duties and expelled from Conservative caucus until his case is resolved.

Conservative MP Wajid Khan withdrew from the Conservative caucus in 2007 when he was charged under the Elections Act. He returned to the Conservative caucus a few months later after the matter was resolved.

Update 5:12pm. Global reports that Mr. Del Mastro has been booted from the Conservative caucus.

Update 5:19pm.I can confirm that Mr. Del Mastro is no longer a member of the Conservative caucus. A government source says Mr. Del Mastro has resigned, but that “ultimately Mr. Del Mastro did not have a choice.” In addition to Mr. Khan, the other precedent here is Peter Goldring, who withdrew from the Conservative caucus in 2011 after being charged with refusing to take a breathalyzer test. He rejoined the caucus in June.

Update 5:30pm. An official statement from Mr. Del Mastro.

Today I learned that Elections Canada laid charges against me pertaining to the 2008 General Election. As I have consistently stated in the past, I entirely reject these allegations and look forward to the opportunity to defend myself in court.

Since my election in 2006, I have been dedicated to first and foremost, the people of the Peterborough Riding, and that will not change moving forward, and secondly to the Conservative Party. While it is my full intention to continue to support the Government’s economic agenda and the principals for which it stands, I have advised caucus leadership that it is my intention to step out of caucus until this matter is resolved.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/dean-del-mastro-charged/feed/30Goodbye Vic Toews?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/goodbye-vic-toews/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/goodbye-vic-toews/#commentsWed, 26 Jun 2013 15:55:43 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=399949'Mr. Speaker, I will not get into those kinds of cheap shots that the member does'

If Mr. Toews’ federal political career is soon to end, his last exchange with the opposition will be this one from June 10.

Randall Garrison. Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have misplaced priorities when it comes to RCMP reform as well. Last week the minister refused to distance himself from Commissioner Paulson’s inappropriate comments about sexual harassment in the force. Now the minister is flatly rejecting the idea of civilian governance for the RCMP. This was a key recommendation of the Brown task force for improving RCMP accountability. Why does the minister insist on undermining rather than rebuilding public trust in the RCMP?

Vic Toews. Mr. Speaker, our government has taken strong action to restore pride in Canada’s national police force. Harassment in the RCMP, especially harassment of a sexual nature, is a problem. The commissioner, like all Canadians, finds it totally unacceptable and our government agrees. What I do not understand is that when we had the debate to see what legislation was needed by the RCMP, who stood up to vote against it? That member and his party.

Rosane Doré Lefebvre. Mr. Speaker, the minister is once again showing that he is living beyond his means, intellectually speaking. He knows full well that Bill C-42 does not go far enough. The RCMP needs a change in culture, from the bottom straight up to the top. The band-aid solutions proposed by the minister are not enough to restore the public trust. Why are the Conservatives opposing the idea that the commissioner no longer be accountable to the minister? Why categorically oppose the principle of civil governance at the RCMP?

Vic Toews. Mr. Speaker, I will not get into those kinds of cheap shots that the member does. I may not have been blessed with the same intelligence she has, but I try to make up for it with hard work. I try to work with my colleagues in the House. We have brought good legislation forward that would transform the RCMP. Unfortunately, that member and her party have consistently stood in the way of meaningful reform for the RCMP.

Given the statement for which Mr. Toews is most recently famous for, this bit about not getting into “those kinds of cheap shots” is possibly the funniest thing Mr. Toews has ever said. Indeed, his last two statements in the House—see here and here—would be responses to lobbed questions that allowed the minister to accuse Charlie Angus of sexism (for a reference to a Beatles song) and fret that Thomas Mulcair could have endangered children (when the NDP leader had his “misunderstanding” with Hill security).

Nonetheless, Mr. Toews would at the very least leave us with a valuable lesson about the limits of denigrating one’s opponents—or at least the risk that in doing so, one might undermine own’s own cause. As Mr. Toews admonished the NDP’s Francoise Boivin 16 months ago: “Mr. Speaker, the member, by trying to over-emphasize her point, discredits herself.”

Brent Rathgeber, the tall, nerdy Conservative backbencher with a blog had apparently been coaxed yesterday to one of the House foyer’s three microphones by a question about the transfer of Omar Khadr to a prison in Edmonton, the city from which Mr. Rathgeber hails. Soon enough, Mr. Rathgeber was being asked about the matter of Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy, a politician at a microphone inevitably attracting other reporters with other questions.

Mr. Rathgeber said he believed the Prime Minister, but that what the Prime Minister didn’t know raised questions about the operations of the Prime Minister’s Office. He worried about the power of the executive over the legislature. He said it was now for Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy to answer questions. He said the Conservative party’s supporters were angry. And then a reporter asked if he had a response to the news that Mr. Duffy had apparently once wanted to be a cabinet minister.

“Well,” he said, “I think it just reinforces what I said to one of the first questions as to why I haven’t commented on the story. It’s because the story changes day by day, sometimes hour by hour, now minute by minute. I hadn’t heard that.”

Shortly thereafter, the NDP’s regularly indignant Charlie Angus arrived at an adjacent microphone. “If the Prime Minister came clean, people might feel more reassured,” he offered. “I’ll tell you, when you go back home to the Tim Horton’s and you talk to people, they are upset. And they want answers.”

Finally, to the middle microphone, escorted by NDP MPs Andrew Cash and Craig Scott, walked Eric Peterson, television star of Corner Gas and Street Legal. Mr. Peterson had apparently been in the Speaker’s gallery for Question Period, invited as a recipient of the Governor General’s award for lifetime artistic achievement. And he had apparently walked out when he heard the Heritage Minister, in the process of attempting to fend off NDP questions about the Duffy-Wright affair, attack the idea of income averaging for those employed as artists.

“I can’t too strongly express my disappointment,” Mr. Peterson said, “that the Minister of Culture at a moment when we’re supposed to be honouring artists in this country chooses to insult them.”

And with that just about everyone could now claim to have been disappointed by something that occurred in the past 31 days.

There have maybe been a darker day or two or a more singularly profound scandal, but have we ever seen such a sustained onslaught of the dispiriting, troubling and unfortunate in the space of 31 days? Have we ever experienced a month like this? Perhaps without the most salacious items, this would have amounted to an only slightly worse month than usual. But then maybe that is an even greater indictment of the state of things.

If there is anything that those most troubling matters—Mr. Ford and the video, Mr. Wright and the cheque, the 2011 election and the inappropriate phone calls—have in common it is how little we know about whatever has occurred. Has the mayor of Toronto smoked crack in the past six months? What were the details of the arrangement between the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and a senator? Who was involved in calls that misdirected voters during the last federal election?

Of the conduct of the mayor of this country’s largest city, the actions of the most senior advisor in this country’s highest office and the proceedings of our last national exercise in representative democracy, we are left to guess at the particulars. And in the absence of clarity there can only be insecurity.

“I’m frustrated by the lack of forthrightness,” Stephen Harper explained. “When you’re under the kind of cloud the prime minister admits his government is under I think you would use every opportunity to be as forthright as possible.”

Eight years and one month later, on the evening of May 23, Mr. Harper spoke to reporters who had travelled with him to Cali, Colombia.

The first question was perhaps a bit presumptuous, but still basically the question of the moment. “Prime Minister, if you didn’t know what the terms of the agreement were between Mr. Wright and Senator Duffy before, you do now,” the reporter posited. “So what were the terms of the agreement, and in both official languages, if you could?”

“Well, I think Mr. Wright has been very clear,” Mr. Harper offered in response, “and I think it’s been very clear. Mr. Wright gave Mr. Duffy money so that what he felt that the right thing should be done, that Mr. Duffy should repay the money he owes taxpayers. That’s my understanding. Obviously Mr. Wright will be answering to the Ethics Commissioner on the propriety of those actions. At the same time, as you know, Mr. Wright has departed my office because he did not inform me of these actions, and should have.”

A few questions later, another reporter attempted to follow up.

“Thank you, in answer to the first question, you said that the deal between Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy was very simple, that it was just giving Duffy money to pay back the expenses,” the reporter recalled. “There’s a great deal that suggests it was more than that, including the fact that lawyers were involved in drawing up the agreement. Will you commit to disclosing that agreement?”

Mr. Harper pleaded ignorance. “I’m not aware of any formal agreement on this. Mr. Wright has told me that this was the nature of his actions. Obviously he will be answering to the Ethics Commissioner on those facts and on the appropriateness of those actions.”

It is tempting here to pile up more questions—about the arrangement between Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright, about the allegations of what Mr. Duffy was promised and what he was ordered to do, about the Prime Minister’s use here of the word “formal” in referring to possibility of an agreement. But let’s only recall Mr. Harper’s standard for Mr. Martin and pose this question: With these answers, was the Prime Minister being forthright?

It is possible to argue he was. It is the assurance of his office that the Prime Minister is aware only of the details of the arrangement between Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy cited in his first response: that Mr. Wright provided personal funds to Mr. Duffy so that Mr. Duffy could repay the money he owed the Senate. So maybe here the Prime Minister has been forthright.

It is an unfortunate possibility then—if, say, the allegations about various other details of the arrangement between the chief of staff and the senator are at all true—that the Prime Minister is not fully aware of what has occurred within his office.

And that likely thus begs the question of what precisely the Prime Minister has done over the last two weeks to ascertain all of the details of whatever was occurring within his office. Forthrightness would seem to involve him explaining both how he has attempted to educate himself and whatever else he might know that might provide potential context to whatever occurred between Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy. While we wait for Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy to unburden themselves and for the various authorities to decide if there is anything here that requires their intervention, the Prime Minister might at least give us that. (He might also provide any relevant correspondence or documents in the possession of his office.)

By comparison, the matter of Rob Ford and the video purported to show him smoking crack is relatively simple: the failure to account for himself, and that he has let his refusal to account for himself overtake his administration, is a dereliction of duty. No politician should be asked to account publicly for all moments of his or her life, but of a matter this serious it is simply not acceptable that the mayor would leave voters to parse the tense of a statement like, “I do not use crack cocaine.” If the standard is forthrightness, Mr. Ford has failed miserably.

Thirdly then is the matter of the “open sore, weeping steadily into the political environment,” as Colby Cosh put it the other day. Forthrightness would seem to have to involve the Prime Minister, as leader of his party, explaining everything he and his party have done during the past two years to understand what occurred during the 2011 election and to ensure his party’s resources are never used for improper purposes. We should have every reason to believe that the next election will be conducted without widespread chicanery.

***

CP/Adrian Wyld

Of course, if forthrightness were to be offered now it might seem truly remarkable—a foreign sound to our ears.

As a profession, politics is, of course, about differing visions and versions. And any comment on the current state of things is complicated by comparisons that beg to be made: Wasn’t it always thus? Has it really gotten any worse? Hasn’t it, in some ways, only gotten better?

But here is another question: Can we say that we conduct our politics in a sufficiently forthright manner? Maybe the answer to that question can only ever be no. Maybe we should only ever demand more and more. But consider how poorly we fare now. How little we seem to be able to know. How unable our politicians seem to be to have a conversation about much of anything. How unwilling we seem to be to hear anything more than that our taxes will be lowered.

The government’s primary method of communication is publicly funded television ads that offer little more than slogans—”Responsible Resource Development,” “Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity.” The access to information system remains a mess. We know relatively little about how the government plans to balance the federal budget. Presumably, the consolidation of the government’s computer systems will solve most of the shortfall. The government introduced a Parliamentary Budget Officer, but seems reluctant to cooperate with it. Elsewhere there is mostly nonsense. The debate over resource development and climate change is mostly about the patriotic quality of the Keystone XL pipeline, the degree to which a carbon tax might destroy everything you hold dear and whether or not you approve of jobs. The issue of further reducing crime apparently depends on whether you side with criminals or the law-abiding. (Is there an alternative approach to which to aspire? It is difficult to say. The New Democrats seem to have learned some lessons from Conservative success. Justin Trudeau’s promise remains a fuzzy dream.)

Our political representatives might not actually think we are idiots, but they would seem to understand that we are not paying terribly close attention and comport themselves accordingly. The talking point has made an ability to discuss mostly unnecessary. A willingness to discuss is basically to be discouraged. If you’re explaining, you’re losing. At the very least, we would not seem generally interested in much of a discussion. It is now maybe less an exercise in humanity than a matter of marketing: a battle between pitchmen, a contest of commercial mascots. Twas ever thus, perhaps. But while the free flow of information and expression has seemed to become something we prize as one of the principles of our era, our politicians have made message control their preeminent hallmark of competence.

And perhaps that is not an entirely unworthy goal, but now, in these moments of crisis, our political actors seem incapable of reacting sufficiently. Mr. Ford is now nearly a walking satire of modern politics: enthusing about lower taxes even as nearly everything else about the governance of the city of Toronto seems to be chaos.

At some point such grousing about the present becomes a pointless plea that someone should do something to make things somehow better. None of this is to pine unrealistically for some Bulworth fantasy. At least not without realizing how silly that is. It is surely not all bad right now. And each of these controversies will pass, one way or another.

But, in general, we seem to have a communication problem and the makings of a downward spiral. These reasons to doubt the integrity of our politics require, for the sake of our politics, answers. There cannot only ever be more reasons to dismiss the possibilities of the political. That way only leads to further crisis. Mr. Harper was correct. What we need is forthrightness. Perhaps even in the hope that a general expectation of forthrightness might prevent future calamities from occurring.

So politician, explain thyself. And let us understand that we deserve whatever befalls us if we do not demand as much.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-worst-month-in-the-history-of-canadian-politics/feed/168The Commons: The Conservatives run out of answershttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-conservatives-run-out-of-answers/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-conservatives-run-out-of-answers/#commentsWed, 22 May 2013 22:10:44 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=386552And Pat Martin wonders where it all went wrong

The afternoon was not without new clarification. Or at least an attempt at such.

Picking up where yesterday had left off, Thomas Mulcair endeavoured to sort out the precise value of John Baird’s assurance that the matter of Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy had been referred to two independent authorities.

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, 11 times the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the Duffy affair was going to be investigated by independent authorities, independent bodies, independent officers. When my colleague, the House Leader of the Official Opposition asked him what those were, he could not give an answer,” Mr. Mulcair recounted. “Twice during the afternoon the Prime Minister’s Office said that they were referring to the Senate’s Ethics Officer. Later it corrected that to say that it is the Senate committee, the same one that whitewashed Mike Duffy the first time, that is carrying out the investigation.”

“Does the minister not realize,” Mr. Mulcair asked, “that is about as credible as Paul Martin asking Jean Chrétien to investigate the sponsorship scandal?”

The New Democrats enjoyed this reference and stood to applaud their man.

Mr. Baird now stood to quote himself. “What I did say yesterday was, and I quote: ‘Furthermore, this matter has been referred to two independent bodies for review,’ which is nothing like what he just said,” Mr. Baird explained, seeming to stress the word referred.

So… there?

It is not actually clear what this should clarify, although, as it turns out, it now seems the Senate Ethics Officer is indeed reviewing the matter. So there’s that. Unfortunately, there is not much else on offer. Or, rather, not much else that the government seems either willing or able to offer.

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that we were referring to some form of legal document that he was not aware of and that his understanding is that no such document exists,” Mr. Mulcair pressed with his third opportunity, speaking slowly and deliberately. “There is a trust document. There is a cheque. Will the Conservatives let the public see the trust document and the cheque?”

Mr. Baird apparently did not see any reason to acknowledge any such kind of possible distinction. “Mr. Speaker, again, what I said was that there was no legal document with which had been referred to in this House by members of the opposition on a number of occasions,” he said. “I said that our understanding was that there was no such legal document. No one in the government is aware of such a legal document.”

Nathan Cullen, the NDP House leader, now broadened the matter. “Can the Conservatives say definitively that there were no documents in the Prime Minister’s Office that related to the Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright scandal?” he wondered. “To be clear: no emails, no memos, no notes. Yes or no?”

In response to that simple query, Mr. Baird offered praise for the ethics commissioner. “This matter has been referred to her and the government is prepared to fully co-operate as she looks into this issue,” the Foreign Affairs Minister assured before repeating his understanding that a “legal agreement” does not exist.

In fact, the problem for the government here is that there is very little to parse. There are only questions here that need be answered and allegations that need be addressed.

If this has hit the government harder than anything in its seven years in office, it is possibly for similar reasons. This matter of Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy is not a matter of simple pork (the G8 Legacy Fund), nor complicated accounting and procurement (the F-35), nor electioneering (In-and-Out), nor the conditions of third-world prisons in a war zone (the Afghan detainee controversy). It is neither arcane (prorogation), nor legislative (omnibus budget bills), nor parliamentary (the 2011 finding of contempt), nor merely a matter of expensive orange juice (Bev Oda). It is, instead, the stuff of primetime television drama: the allegations are the stuff of entitlement, privilege, corruption and the evasion of justice. It is an episode of The Good Wife, if perhaps not a particularly good episode of The Good Wife. Less entertaining, but allegedly real.

Unfortunately for Mr. Harper, there seem few answers on the government side.

“We know now that the Conservatives on the Senate Committee on Internal Economy used their majority to doctor the final report on Senator Duffy’s expenses,” Justin Trudeau charged with his first opportunity. “Can anybody on that side of the House tell us who gave the order to whitewash the report on Senator Duffy?”

Mr. Baird apparently could not.

“If Wright is solely responsible,” Mr. Trudeau wondered, “when will the government call him to testify under oath to his malfeasance?”

Mr. Baird could only offer assurances that Mr. Harper was unaware of what Mr. Wright was up to and that Mr. Wright had done the right thing in resigning.

“Who on that committee was part of the $90,000 whitewash,” Charlie Angus asked of the Senate’s internal economy committee and the promise of a new review of Mike Duffy’s expenses, “and will they be allowed to partake in this new review or will the government do the right thing and call in the police?”

Mr. Baird deferred to the House ethics commissioner.

Later, Mr. Trudeau returned to his feet to continue posing questions. “Will the government produce the cheque?” he asked.

Mr. Baird reviewed the government’s version of events and deferred to the ethics commissioner.

Mr. Trudeau raised the possible existence of an email he seemed to think the Prime Minister’s Office was in possession of. “Will the government commit to releasing this and any other email or document, electronic or otherwise, that relates to the secret deal between the PMO and Senator Duffy?”

Mr. Baird deferred to the ethics commissioner.

Twenty-three times Mr. Baird stood this afternoon, mostly bereft of the sort of answers that might begin to settle any of this. Even his assurances were problematic. “I understand that Mr. Wright has taken sole responsibility for the decision he made on the repayment and his actions. He immediately submitted his resignation and it was immediately accepted,” Mr. Baird explained at one point, a version of the timing that seems to clash with the public record and anonymous supposition.

In the middle of the day, at the end of its line of questioning, the New Democrats sent up Pat Martin, who proceeded to do as Pat Martin does.

“Mr. Speaker, the minister is going for cocky when he should be going for contrition,” he chided Mr. Baird. “A little less swagger and a little more Jimmy Swaggart would be in order.”

This was possibly one of the finer lines in the history of this place, even if the Foreign Affairs Minister did not seem too swaggering this day.

Mr. Martin furrowed his brow and gestured with both hands to act out his sermon.

“They rode into Ottawa on their high horse of accountability, and all we have to show for it is the mess that horse left,” he quipped. “They should take their Federal Accountability Act and run it through that horse and throw it on their roses for all the good it has ever done us.”

He might’ve stopped there, but he did offer a pair of rhetorical question for the sake of the record.

“My question for the minister is simple: When did it all go so terribly wrong?” he wondered. “When did they jettison integrity and honesty and accountability for the sake of political expediency?”

The New Democrats stood to cheer this and even Liberals applauded, Mr. Trudeau thumping the top of his desk in appreciation.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-conservatives-run-out-of-answers/feed/278The Commons: John Baird tries to explain what he understands to be truehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-john-baird-tries-to-explain-what-he-understands-to-be-true/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-john-baird-tries-to-explain-what-he-understands-to-be-true/#commentsTue, 21 May 2013 21:54:53 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=386131The opposition is not appeased by the Prime Minister's acknowledgement of unhappiness

Thomas Mulcair stood to a hearty cheer from his caucus and, when the applause had quieted, he attempted a joke.

“Mr. Speaker, when the going gets tough, the tough get going, to Peru apparently,” he quipped.

There were grumbles and complaints from the government side—it being unparliamentary to refer to the presence, or at least the lack thereof, of anyone in the House of Commons. Mr. Mulcair hadn’t quite done that here, but the Speaker was compelled to intervene here anyway and call for order.

The floor was returned to Mr. Mulcair and the NDP leader now proceeded to recap the story so far, a mix of the acknowledged, the alleged and the reported.

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff gave Mike Duffy a $90,000 cheque,” he said. “In exchange, Duffy paid off illegal expenses, stopped co-operating with auditors and the PMO said in writing that they would go easy on him. In his own words Senator Duffy ‘stayed silent on the orders of the Prime Minister’s Office.’ A secret cash payment from the Prime Minister’s chief of staff negotiated by the Prime Minister’s own lawyer.”

The Prime Minister’s Office does admit that Mr. Wright wrote a cheque in the amount of $90,000 for Mike Duffy. The rest is the stuff of nightly dispatches from CTV’s Robert Fife. The Prime Minister would like to assure you that he is “very upset.” (About what? All of it? Some of it?) And John Baird would now stand to assure everyone that the Prime Minister was entirely unaware that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff had written that cheque.

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear that he was not aware of the payment until last week after it had been reported publicly in the media,” Mr. Baird explained. “The Prime Minister spoke very loudly and very clearly this morning.”

The Prime Minister did speak this morning. His relative clarity and his practical volume are perhaps subject to debate.

“Furthermore, this matter has been referred to two independent bodies for review,” Mr. Baird continued. “We look forward to the results of these reviews.”

Beyond these assurances, Mr. Baird had arrived at Question Period this afternoon with at least enough information to answer two questions.

Was Ray Novak, the current chief of staff, aware of the previous chief of staff’s payment to Mr. Duffy? He was not, Mr. Baird told the House.

Would the government now table the document that apparently put in writing the agreement between Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright? “Our understanding is there is no document,” Mr. Baird explained.

So what about the reported involvement of the Prime Minister’s legal advisor?

“Mr. Speaker, Mike Duffy agreed to ‘stay silent on the orders of the PMO.’ In exchange the Prime Minister’s Office agreed to cover the cost of the senator’s fraudulent expenses. Why were taxpayer-funded lawyers used to negotiate this secret backroom deal between the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and Senator Duffy?” Mr. Mulcair asked. “Was taxpayers’ money used to bankroll “senategate”, yes or no?”

Mr. Baird did not have a clear answer to this, except to assure everyone of his clarity. “Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to the Leader of the Opposition that I reject much of the premise of his question,” the Foreign Affairs Minister declared. “I have been very clear and the government has been very clear that the Prime Minister was not aware of this payment until media reports surfaced last week. Let me be very clear on that point.”

A response from the lawyer in question would come a couple hours later.

Here the questions kept coming.

“The Prime Minister called in the cops on Helena Guergis and Bruce Carson,” the NDP’s Charlie Angus recalled. “Given the seriousness of these allegations, will he call in the cops against Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy?”

“Mr. Speaker, let me once again be very clear,” Mr. Baird pleaded. “This issue has already been referred to two independent authorities that will look into this matter appropriately and be able to report back to Parliament and to Canadians. This government looks forward to the findings of those two independent reports.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Baird could not then explain himself some moments later when the NDP’s Nathan Cullen stood and wondered aloud to which two independent authorities the minister was referring. The Prime Minister’s Office explains that Mr. Baird was referring to the ethics commissioner and the possibility of a renewed investigation by the Senate’s internal economy committee—the same committee that is presently accused of whitewashing the original investigation of Mr. Duffy as part of the deal between the senator and Mr. Wright.

The NDP’s Craig Scott stood and wondered if the Justice Minister was of the belief that Mr. Wright might have breached Section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act or Section 119 of the Criminal Code. Rob Nicholson stayed seated as Mr. Baird rejected Mr. Scott’s premises.

Ralph Goodale stood and demanded, almost as an afterthought, all emails related to this matter.

“Mr. Speaker, ordinary Canadians do not have access to rich Conservative friends to pay their debts,” he suggested. “A week ago the government was calling Mike Duffy an ‘honourable man,’ showing ‘leadership’ and doing ‘the right thing.’ The Prime Minister knows that a secret payment of $90,000 was made by his most senior official to shut down a forensic audit of Duffy’s illegal expenses, to pervert the Senate’s official report on those expenses, and to block any further investigation. With whom and when did this corruption begin and will the government table all emails pertaining to this insidious scheme?”

Mr. Baird stood to reject the preamble and ignore the question.

“Let me say this,” Mr. Baird offered. “A committee in the other place that was looking into this brought in some outside auditors. The conclusion of that report was that these claims never should have been made. No one in the government, certainly no one in this place, rejects that conclusion. I understand in the report it was mentioned that these expenses had been reimbursed, as is what had happened.”

Oh for the good ole days of that Thursday nearly two weeks ago when that was all that was known to have happened. It was a simpler time. An easier time. A time long after Mr. Wright wrote that cheque, but a few days before we—and apparently the Prime Minister—were to find out that he’d written it. Alas, there’s no going back for us—or the Prime Minister—now.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-john-baird-tries-to-explain-what-he-understands-to-be-true/feed/55This mess the Senate’s inhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-mess-the-senates-in/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-mess-the-senates-in/#commentsTue, 14 May 2013 19:00:11 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=384067A legal opinion, a request from the NDP and a statement from Patrick Brazeau

The RCMP is apparently reviewing the Senate’s expense troubles and former senator Lowell Murray says the word “crisis” is applicable here. Meanwhile, Postmedia reported yesterday that the Senate’s internal economy committee was seeking a legal opinion on the precise nature of the Constitution’s residency requirement for senators, but that the Senate was not likely to release that legal opinion publicly.

However, the Senate should soon interpret the residency requirement to settle questions that have swirled for months and longer about Duffy but fellow Conservative Sen. Pamela Wallin.

Underlying that decision will be a legal opinion about the section of the Constitution dealing with senators’ qualifications. The Senate’s powerful internal economy committee has asked for the legal opinion, but it has not yet arrived at the committee’s table and it’s unlikely the conclusions will ever be made public.

This afternoon, I asked the office of Senator David Tkahuk, chair of the internal economy committee, why that legal opinion wouldn’t be released and have just now been told that the senator has no comment. But NDP MP Charlie Angus has written today to the Senate seeking a legal opinion that Conservative Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton apparently referenced and the legal opinion the internal economy has sought.

And now, Senator Patrick Brazeau’s office has released a statement that quibbles with the Senate’s findings against him.

On December 11, 2013, Senator Brazeau met with the sub-committee on Internal Economy to discuss issues pertaining to his primary residence. At that meeting, Senator Brazeau disclosed documentation and facts regarding that, in fact, Maniwaki, Quebec is his primary residence. As requested, Senator Brazeau provided his driver’s license, health card, income tax returns and voting information.

On February 26, 2013 Senator Brazeau met Deloitte auditors at which time additional information was requested. On February 28, 2013 the additional information was hand delivered to Deloitte. On April 15, 2013 Senator Brazeau once again met with the Deloitte auditors to answer any final questions they had.

On April 29, 2013 Senator Brazeau received a copy the draft report prepared by Deloitte. In that report, no conclusions were made regarding Senator Brazeau’s primary residence. Senator Brazeau was, nevertheless, deemed to have met all four primary residence “indicators.” Furthermore, the report states no false claims were made by Senator Brazeau.

Despite meeting Deloitte’s primary residence criteria and co-operating fully and completely, the Senate committee on Internal Economy tabled a report in the Senate Chamber on May 9, in which orders Senator Brazeau to repay the sum of $34,619 in living expenses and $144.97 in travel expenses.

It is unclear how the Committee could have come to this conclusion when there is no clear definition of what, for purposes of their own policy, constitutes a “primary residence.” Deloitte notes that the current Senate policy uses the following terms without any definitions – primary residence, secondary residence, NCR residence and provincial residence. The Deloitte report in no way finds anything untoward regarding the claims and documents filed by Senator Brazeau.

Additionally, Senator Brazeau has fulfilled his obligations in forwarding all relevant documentation requested by the Committee and auditors. It remains unclear if all other sitting Senators meet the primary residency indicators – which Senator Brazeau does — or if they were treated with the same scrutiny, rules, regulations and definitions.

As a result, Senator Brazeau will be seeking greater clarification and will explore all options to have this determination overturned by applying the current policies, rules and regulations pertaining to this matter including calling a public meeting of the Senate Committee on Internal Economy to explain their decision.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-mess-the-senates-in/feed/22The Commons: The Real Senators of Parliament Hillhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-real-senators-of-parliament-hill/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-real-senators-of-parliament-hill/#commentsThu, 09 May 2013 22:41:17 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=382319May you never again have to wonder where your senator lives

“Even the bogus investigation by his hand-picked cronies in the Senate,” Thomas Mulcair charged, rather audaciously and perhaps imprudently, in the Prime Minister’s direction this afternoon, “found that Mike Duffy does not maintain a primary residence on Prince Edward Island. The Constitution requires that a senator ‘be a resident of the province for which he is appointed.’ The Conservatives now admit, through their own bogus investigation, that Mr. Duffy is not a resident of PEI, yet still say that he is qualified to be a senator from PEI. Why is the Prime Minister allowing this continuous fraud by the Conservatives in the Senate?”

The Prime Minister’s interpretation of the day’s news differed somewhat.

“Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, an independent external auditor was brought in to examine all of these expenses,” Mr. Harper explained. “He looked obviously at the expenses of three particular senators who have had some difficulty.”

Let us from this day forward remember this moment in Senate history as the Great Difficulty.

“The auditor has concluded that the rules in place were not clear,” Mr. Harper continued, “however, the Senate itself has decided it expects better judgment from the senators. Senator Duffy has some months ago repaid the money and the Senate has decided that other senators will be expected to similarly repay those amounts.”

Officially today, the Senate’s standing committee on internal economy, budgets and administration tabled its 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th reports. Senator Patrick Brazeau has been ordered to repay $48,744, including interest, in previously claimed expenses. Senator Mac Harb has been ordered to repay $51,482. Senator Mike Duffy seems to have accidentally claimed a per diem for several days that he shouldn’t have. A further examination of Senator Harb’s expenses over the seven years prior to April 1, 2011 will also now be conducted. The senior Liberal in the Senate wants the police called in. And Senator Harb has quit the Liberal caucus and says he will take up the finding against him with the courts.

If you should feel it necessary to understand as much as possible about Senator Duffy’s situation, there is a table located at the bottom of page 2 of the Deloitte audit. It is wonderfully entitled “Summary of Senator Duffy’s Location.” (There are similar tables too for Senator Harb and Senator Brazeau.) Of the 549 days covered by the firm’s investigation, Senator Duffy finished 296 days in Ottawa. A total of 164 days, including one “identified day trip,” were concluded in Prince Edward Island. Thus, just 30% of his days were spent in the province he officially represents. Twenty-six days were spent in “other locations.” For 16 days—listed as “Unknown”—Mr. Duffy seems to have gone missing.

We might now resolve this matter forever by having our senators wear GPS ankle bracelets or if we began tagging them like wild bears. Instead, it is in the opinion of the standing committee on internal economy, budgets and administration that “accompanying their primary residence declaration each senator furnish a driver’s licence, a health card and the relevant page of their income tax form each and every time the declaration is signed.” This will presumably help to substantiate the constitutional requirement of residing in the place one is appointed to represent. Hopefully, Senator Duffy will have his PEI health card by the time he is next required to sign the declaration.

“This audit has indicated that there is a ‘lack of clarity’ in the Senate’s rules and definitions with regard to residency and housing allowances,” Senator Duffy responded in a statement. “In this respect, the audit is consistent with the position I have maintained since this controversy first arose.”

Fair enough. The precise nature of the requirement of primary residence was unclear. As unclear perhaps as the precise reason for maintaining a second chamber.

Afterwards, in foyer of the House of Commons, the NDP’s Charlie Angus was happily, if unfortunately, questioning the comprehension of the senators in question—”They stay till 75 doing important work reviewing complex legislation yet they’re not bright enough to fill out a simple housing form”—and down the hall, in the foyer of the Senate, Marjory LeBreton was asking reporters to note the upside: that the Conservatives had introduced quarterly reports on senators’ expenses and those reports had led to today’s clarification of the rules.

The Senate, meanwhile, sent around the statement of Senator David Tkachuk, chair of the standing committee on internal economy, budgets and administration, an appointee of Brian Mulroney in 1993.

“Each of us is here because of our service to our community, to our profession or to our political party. I tell new Senators that God has blessed us. We are privileged to be here,” Senator Tkachuk apparently told the upper chamber today. “But at the same time, and as we have found out at great cost to this institution, any mistakes we make are magnified tenfold. That is because, as a non-elected democratic institution, the ones we govern do not have the ability to ‘throw the rascals out.’ We are protected by parliamentary privilege and by constitutional requirement. We therefore have a higher obligation. How seriously we take it will determine our future.”

And so, if God wishes there to be a Senate, may He bless it with fewer reasons to scrutinize the nature of its existence.

At noon, the House moved to government orders. To present S-7, the Combatting Terrorism Act, stood Candice Bergen, parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety.

“In closing,” she concluded shortly thereafter, “I would like to express my deepest condolences to all of those who have suffered as a result of the despicable acts that occurred in Boston this last week. The way that the city has come together has been an inspiration for all of us. They have shown the world that fear would not define them and I would hope that Canadians, if such a thing would happen, would do the same thing.”

So let us say that it is not fear, but general awareness of fearsome possibility that guides us now.

“At the same time, I would like to say that it is so important to ensure that Canada has the necessary laws and tools to prevent such a heinous attack,” Ms. Bergen continued. “We want to make sure that we are fully prepared and that we can combat terrorism and possible future terrorist acts, as well as making sure that anyone who has been involved in terrorist acts in Canada is dealt with. We have to ensure that the evildoers are met with the justice that they deserve. Otherwise, we as parliamentarians have failed our most basic duty: To protect Canadians.”

Up first was Charlie Angus, who quibbled with nothing less than the fact that this debate was happening now.

“Mr. Speaker, certainly today, thinking of my dear friends in Boston as people all over the world are thinking of Boston, I would like to refer my honourable colleague to the editorial in today’s Globe and Mail,” Mr. Angus offered. “It says that the two-day debate in Parliament on the government’s proposed anti-terrorism legislation, ‘smacks of political opportunism, and it is regrettable that it will take place. The debate politicizes the Boston Marathon bombings when few facts are known.’ ”

Mr. Angus now managed the neat trick of pronouncing shame on both the party opposite and the party beside him in a single sentence. “The Globe and Mail calls on Parliament to take the time to reflect on this bill,” Mr. Angus informed the House, “and not to use it just to embarrass the fuzzy thinking of the Liberal leader.”

Ms. Bergen was not impressed. “It is too bad the NDP does not seem to understand that terrorism is a threat. We have seen it over this last week. It is not just a notion. It is not just something for academics to talk about.”

The NDP’s Dany Morin suggested that this bill’s sudden reemergence on the legislative agenda reeked of partisanship.

Ms. Bergen was not impressed. “They can support the legislation or can stand and give an informed, intelligent response. But what we are hearing so far today is again pretty shallow and I would say intellectually bankrupt.”

Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux wondered whether, were this bill to pass the House today, the Liberals might have their opposition day tomorrow.

Ms. Bergen was, once more, not impressed. “Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by assuring both the NDP and the Liberals that this is not about them. They need to stop the navel-gazing and thinking that the whole world revolves around them because it does not.”

You will perhaps forgive the members of the opposition—and the editors of the Globe and Mail—their suspicions.

The bill passed the House at report stage on February 13 and thereafter had not moved forward. The Boston Marathon was attacked on the afternoon of April 15. By the testimony of Liberal MP Marc Garneau, S-7 was not mentioned at that day’s meeting of House leaders. And it was not mentioned two days later when the Government House leader stood to inform the House of this week’s agenda. Not until last Friday afternoon, did Peter Van Loan stand and declare, in the interests of “decisive and serious action,” that S-7 would be brought forward for its final hours of debate. This just about an hour after Liberal leader Justin Trudeau had announced his intention to use this day to give party leaders a smidge less power and a couple days after the Prime Minister took a moment to criticize Mr. Trudeau for offering that meandering response to a question posed by Peter Mansbridge.

It is the New Democrats who actually oppose S-7, the official opposition insisting on their concerns about civil liberties. Mr. Morin recounted 18 amendments the NDP had attempted to make when the bill was before the public safety committee. Mike Sullivan, the NDP MP for York South-Weston, attempted to explain his concerns with the hypothetical case of Uncle Albert of Moose Jaw, who might apparently be locked up for 12 months because his hypothetical nephew is suspected of something to do with terrorism. (Keeping in mind that Uncle Albert’s hypothetical nephew is hypothetically innocent until hypothetically proven hypothetically guilty.)

“That is the kind of thing that could happen to Uncle Albert, in Moose Jaw, who has absolutely no terrorist inclination whatsoever,” Mr. Sullivan explained. “However, because he is related to somebody the police are only investigating because they suspect there might be some kind of terrorist activity, Uncle Albert would be put in jail for up to 12 months.”

What ensued was mostly a discussion between the New Democrats and Mr. Lamoureux. It was Mr. Lamoureux who eventually felt it necessary to stand and defend his leader’s honour. Pronouncing shame on the Prime Minister for his eager criticism, the Liberal for Winnipeg North took a moment to review what a couple other leaders had said about such things. “President Barack Obama said: ‘Obviously tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here as part of our communities and our country resort to such violence?’ ” Mr. Lamoureux recounted. “That came from a real leader, President Barack Obama.”

So there. And so it was, a couple hours later, that Mr. Lamoureux’s leader, Mr. Trudeau, walked out into the foyer and, with news of an upended terrorist plot circulating, seemed momentarily uninterested in a discussion about causation. What, he was asked, were the root causes of the bombing in Boston?

“There are a lot of questions still to be asked,” Mr. Trudeau allowed, “but on issues of terrorism, I think the first thing we need to do is anticipate the thanks that we will have for law enforcement officers here in this country and agencies in this country who, reports have it, have managed to thwart a potential terrorism plot here in Canada. And this is the kind of work that the men and women of Canadian law enforcement agencies need to continue doing and they have our thanks and our full support in that.”

A few minutes later, an RCMP officer appeared on the television in the foyer to allege that two friends of al-Qaeda had been plotting to attack a VIA Rail train near Toronto.

The approach employed by the NDP not only personalizes debate, but it does so in an offensive and inflammatory fashion. Consider what we might expect to hear if the NDP position became the accepted practice in the chamber. If this kind of name-calling is allowed, it would apply not just to ministers and parliamentary secretaries, of course, but to opposition shadow ministers. For example, the hon. member for Halifax, the NDP’s environment critic, could well be referred to as the NDP spokesperson for creating a crippling carbon tax.

According to the NDP, this would be parliamentary language. I do not believe it is. Instead of the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park described as the NDP finance critic, she could instead be called the NDP spokesperson for bigger government and higher taxes, or perhaps the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay could be the spokesperson for unethical interference with independent electoral boundary commissions or, since he changed his vote on the long gun registry, maybe he could be the spokesperson for betraying rural Canadians.

The complaint goes back to March 8, when the New Democrats made reference to “the minister responsible for butchering employment insurance,” which the Conservatives interpreted as an attempt to suggest that was Diane Finley’s actual title. This presents a fairly tricky parsing for the Speaker, I suspect—certainly less obvious than, say, NDP references to Tony Clement as the “Muskoka Minister.” Parsing parliamentary insults is always fun. For instance, I suspect that if the New Democrats had referred to Ms. Finley as “the minister who has been responsible for the butchering of employment insurance” or “the minister who butchered employment insurance” there probably wouldn’t be grounds for a complaint here.

I’m not sure Pierre Poilievre has apologized for referring to Charlie Angus as the “gerrymanderer-in-chief over there.” But perhaps an apology could be part of some kind of armistice agreement between the government and official opposition.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stompin-tom-connors-rip/feed/0The Commons: John Baird, Pierre Poilievre and the hypocritical oathhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-john-baird-pierre-poilievre-and-the-hypocritical-oath/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-john-baird-pierre-poilievre-and-the-hypocritical-oath/#commentsThu, 28 Feb 2013 22:53:59 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=355478The gleeful master of gotcha and the Minister of State for I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I?

Charlie Angus wanted to talk about the possibility that individuals appointed to the Senate to represent specific provinces did not sufficiently reside in those provinces. But Pierre Poilievre wanted to talk about how Mr. Angus had been the subject of a complaint made by the Ontario election boundaries commission.

“The Member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay submitted that the community of interest among farmers and people associated with agriculture in the farming area west and north of the City of Temiskaming Shores flowed north along Highway 11, and that there was no community of interest with people involved in agriculture in the electoral district of Nickel Belt,” the report reads, in reference to Mr. Angus. “The Member also expressed concern about the ability to serve constituents effectively if the communities along Highway 11 from the Town of Smooth Rock Falls to west of the Town of Hearst were included in the electoral district. This was the first hint of what the Commission considers to be inappropriate involvement by a Member of Parliament in the electoral redistribution process.”

Hadn’t the Conservatives, just two weeks ago, defended the involvement of parliamentarians in the boundary-drawing process? Well, yes. But they had also been responding, in part, to questions from Mr. Angus.

So… what exactly? Was Mr. Angus’ intervention somehow worse than the Conservative party’s mounting a public political campaign against the boundary commission? Was he merely guilty of the same offence he accused the Conservatives of committing? Were they both wrong? Did Mr. Angus’ wrong make the Conservatives’ actions somehow right? Did Mr. Angus’ actions somehow excuse whatever was going on in the Senate?

“He is the one who stands in the House and grandstands so regularly, putting himself on the highest moral level,” Mr. Poilievre explained a moment later.” He is the one who has been singled out for breaking the rules. He is the one who should stand and explain that.”

So perhaps Mr. Angus should stand and proclaim his offence a “big victory” and that would be that.

But ultimately Mr. Poilievre’s allegation is just that: hypocrisy. Whatever his actual title as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport or some such, Mr. Poilievre is something like the Minister of State for I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I? And he is very good at his job. Whatever you can accuse his side of doing, he can think of something that your side did that was somewhat similar in nature. Or he can suggest that you—at least if you are the NDP’s Alexandre Boulerice—are a separatist. Presumably the aim is to ensure that everyone is regarded as equally unworthy of your trust. His fellow Conservatives adore his performances. For sure, as song and dance routines go, Mr. Poilievre’s is certainly more entertaining than, say, Julian Fantino’s lo-fi grumble or Rob Nicholson’s perpetual disappointment in the opposition.

But he is still no John Baird—the gleeful master of the glancing gotcha, the wizard of fleeting and tangential advantage.

On this day, the Foreign Affairs Minister, for whatever reason, was assigned the responsibility of handling all questions on employment insurance reform. This gave him opportunity to not only mock Stephane Dion’s carbon tax and Thomas Mulcair’s cap-and-trade proposal (which Mr. Baird and his new friend John Kerry have supported and which the President recently asked Congress to pursue), but also to mock the fact that the NDP’s Andrew Cash has been paid by the CBC.

Mr. Baird’s first duty this day though was to lead the Conservative effort and thus, in today’s case, respond to the Senate-related taunts of Thomas Mulcair.

“Mr. Speaker, there are 16 Conservative senators who have refused to come clean with Canadians about their residency and housing expenses. But now the Conservative senators charged with investigating corruption in the Senate have said that only three will face a forensic audit,” Mr. Mulcair explained. ”How can Conservatives be trusted to investigate Conservatives? Will the Conservative government finally agree to a full, independent investigation of all residence and travel expenses in the unelected, unaccountable and unapologetic Senate?”

Mr. Baird stood and offered the official reassurances of integrity and appropriateness.

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister asked the leader of the NDP to help us pass legislation that would do two things: One, legislation that would allow for elected senators; and two, legislation that would allow for term limits for the Senate,” Mr. Baird reported. “What did the leader of the NDP do? No, he blocked it. He stopped this legislation from moving forward and that is a disgrace to taxpayers.”

A disgrace! Not reforming the Senate is a disgrace! Allowing the Senate to continue in its current state is a disgrace!

“Mr. Speaker, what is a disgrace to taxpayers is to have Conservatives stonewalling Conservative senators to hide the truth from Canadian taxpayers, to let unelected people overturn the laws of Parliament,” Mr. Mulcair shot back, leaning forward and castigating Mr. Baird directly. “That is undemocratic. That is what is unacceptable.”

There was a question then about whether the government had misunderestimated the cost of its new ships by approximately $1.5 billion, but Mr. Baird still wanted to talk about the Senate.

“Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader wants to talk about unelected people making decisions. I could not make this up. The leader of the NDP claimed that he wanted to abolish the Senate, but just yesterday in the House he proposed a private member’s bill giving the Senate new and unprecedented power,” Mr. Baird declared, appearing quite giddy. “Look at what he has done. In his private member’s bill, he is now going to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer not just appointed by the elected House of Commons, but it is going to have to have the support of the unelected Senate.”

“Ohhh!” the Conservatives cried in mock shock.

Mr. Mulcair’s bill on the Parliamentary Budget Officer does indeed set out that “the Governor in Council shall, by commission under the Great Seal, appoint a Parliamentary Budget Officer after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in both Houses of Parliament and approval of the appointment by resolution of those Houses.”

“The NDP leader should make his choice,” Mr. Baird concluded. “Does he want the unelected Senate to have more power, or does he want to join this government in bringing real reforms?”

The Conservatives stood to cheer Mr. Baird’s effort.

And so Mr. Mulcair had apparently erred in acknowledging the Senate’s existence while otherwise advocating for the chamber’s abolishment. And so the Harper government, having spent the last several years appointing senators by the dozen while opposing for the existence of an appointed chamber and now seemingly refusing to move forward with a bill it has the votes to pass, is left to seek solace in accusing others of hypocrisy.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-john-baird-pierre-poilievre-and-the-hypocritical-oath/feed/12Mike Duffy does not want to be a distractionhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/mike-duffy-does-not-want-to-be-a-distraction/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/mike-duffy-does-not-want-to-be-a-distraction/#commentsFri, 22 Feb 2013 22:31:02 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=353494The Senator will repay those living expenses

Senator Mike Duffy apparently visited the CBC studio in Charlottetown this afternoon to say he’ll be paying back the living expenses he claimed in regards to his home in Ottawa.

“Everywhere I go, people are talking. Well where do you live? What’s it all about? …,” he said. “It’s become a major distraction. “So my wife and I discussed it, and we decided that in order to turn the page, to put all this behind us, we are going to voluntarily pay back my living expenses related to the house we have in Ottawa.”

Duffy blamed the Senate for having unclear rules and forms. “We are going to pay it back, and until the rules are clear — and they’re not clear now, the forms are not clear, and I hope the Senate will redo the forms to make them clear — I will not claim the housing allowance.”

Senator Duffy has also now spoken to CTV. His tab for living expenses is reported to be a little over $42,000.

Four years ago, I was given the opportunity to sit in the Senate as a voice for Prince Edward Islanders in Ottawa. I jumped at the chance. I was born here, I was raised here, I own a house here, I pay property taxes here, and most important, my heart is here.

I also started my career here, and took my Island sensibilities along when I was covering politics in Ottawa.

Being a Senator has allowed me to do a lot of good for PEI communities. And there is a lot more to be done.

Recently questions have been raised about my eligibility for the housing allowance provided to MPs and Senators.

The Senate rules on housing allowances aren’t clear, and the forms are confusing. I filled out the Senate forms in good faith and believed I was in compliance with the rules.

Now it turns out I may have been mistaken.

Rather than let this issue drag on, my wife and I have decided that the allowance associated with my house in Ottawa will be repaid.

I want there to be no doubt that I’m serving Islanders first.

Update 5:42pm. A Conservative source tells me, “the government has no doubt whatsoever about Senator Duffy’s qualification to represent PEI in the Senate.”

“We have committed to ensuring that all expenses are appropriate, that the rules governing expenses are appropriate and to report back to the public on these matters. Senator Duffy maintains a residence in Prince Edward Island and has deep ties to the province.”

Update 6:22pm. A statement from NDP MP Charlie Angus.

Mike Duffy now says that he may have made a mistake when claiming tens of thousands of dollars of living expenses in Ottawa. If you break the rules, saying “I’m sorry” just doesn’t cut it. There must be consequences. What discipline will the Senator face?

Mr. Duffy’s track record on this is troubling. He denied any problem and ran away from questions. It seems some Senators will do almost anything to avoid accountability.

If any forms were falsified in order to try and get extra expense money, the Senate should immediately refer the matter to the police.

Senator Duffy has also still not addressed the question of whether he has met the obligations to be a Senator from Prince Edward Island.

Conservatives are now sending out inspectors to the homes of EI recipients. Perhaps what they should be doing is sending out inspectors to the homes of Conservative and Liberal Senators.

While Conservatives continue to defend the entitlements of their Senators, the NDP will continue to stand up for Canadian taxpayers.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/mike-duffy-does-not-want-to-be-a-distraction/feed/20The Commons: How much would you pay to send Pamela Wallin to Moose Jaw?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-how-much-would-you-pay-to-send-pamela-wallin-to-moose-jaw/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-how-much-would-you-pay-to-send-pamela-wallin-to-moose-jaw/#commentsThu, 14 Feb 2013 23:09:16 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=350955The public audit of the senator's expenses continues

“Let us put the spending of these tax dollars into perspective,” NDP MP Wayne Marston graciously offered shortly before Question Period, referring to some $300,000 in “other” travel expenses apparently claimed by the Senator over the last few years. “This could have paid for one year of old age security for 57 seniors. It took the combined taxes of 28 hard-working Canadian families to pay for this person’s ‘other’ travel. Think about it. Every single dime in taxes for 28 Canadian families just to cover this senator’s ‘other’ travel.”

There is probably a worthwhile proposal here somewhere to make the Senate entirely dependent on voluntary public pledges.

A minute later, Thomas Mulcair stood and pegged the Senator’s travel expenses at $350,000 over a 27-month period. The NDP leader was displeased, but the Prime Minister was apparently unconcerned.

“Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the amount spent by the Senator for travel is similar to that of other parliamentarians,” he said.

In fact, Mr. Harper had an example.

“Just to give an example of that, for instance, over the past three years the average amount spent on travel to and from provinces by western members of the New Democratic Party has been $350,000,” the Prime Minister reported, having apparently stayed up late last night to do the math. “These are the costs that parliamentarians incur when they travel back and forth from Ottawa to their provinces. That is what the senator has done. Of course, all senators and members are committed to ensuring these expenses are appropriate.”

Mr. Mulcair was not quite persuaded to drop the subject.

“Mr. Speaker, $13,000 a month in travel expenses even when the Senate is not sitting is certainly not comparable to other senators,” he declared. “Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin has spent more money on travel outside her supposed home province than any other senator. Even the Conservative committee chairman charged with investigating corruption in the Senate has questioned her travel expenses, calling them very unusual.”

Now the NDP leader leaned in to directly stare down the seated Prime Minister. “In fact,” Mr. Mulcair ventured, “maybe Pamela Wallin is just a typical Conservative senator after all: unelected, unaccountable and under investigation.”

The Prime Minister began to stand up here, apparently thinking Mr. Mulcair was through, but the NDP leader did still have a question to state (if only for the sake of formality). “Will the Prime Minister continue to defend this blatant abuse of public funds or stand up for taxpayers?” he asked.

Mr. Harper would offer reassurances. “Mr. Speaker, once again, the senator spends almost half of her time in the province she represents in the upper house. Her travel costs on Senate business are, in fact, comparable to others. All senators and members of the House are fully prepared and committed to have an examination of expenses to ensure that they are appropriate,” he explained. “That is the commitment that this government has made in both chambers, a commitment we will keep.”

After several rounds to deal with decidedly more profound matters, the House returned to Senator Wallin’s travel habits and Peter Van Loan was compelled to stand and attempt to deflect. “Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated, Senator Wallin’s spending on travel is comparable to that of other parliamentarians from the same region, including western NDP parliamentarians,” he protested. “Apparently it is all right for them to spend that money, but when a Conservative senator spends it, travels and represents their community, and is there for 168 days for the people of Saskatchewan, it is somehow inappropriate.”

Given that the New Democrats favour abolishing the Senate, this was perhaps not quite the charge of hypocrisy that Mr. Van Loan thought it was.

“The NDP members’ real concern is that Conservatives are representing their communities,” the Government House leader continued. “Their problem is that they do not have anyone in Saskatchewan to represent the NDP.”

The NDP’s Charlie Angus finished the official opposition’s testimony for the day with a flourish. “Let us bring a few more things forward,” he offered. “During the last election she was charging $25,000 to the taxpayer for ‘other travel.’ She was showing up at party fundraisers in places like Moose Jaw and Collingwood.”

Various Conservatives audibly questioned the inclusion of Moose Jaw in Mr. Angus’ indictment. And, indeed, as their bemused grumbling seemed to suggest, Moose Jaw is a town in Saskatchewan. And so, at the very least, that much can be said in Ms. Wallin’s defence: whatever she was doing during the last election and however much it cost the public treasury, at least, in that particular case, she was doing it in the province she was appointed to represent.

The NDP leader had asked a straightforward question and the Prime Minister had not quite responded with a straightforward answer and so now Thomas Mulcair, the NDP leader forced to gesture demonstratively this day with only his left arm on account of a fall on his right arm this morning, leaned forward and stared down the Prime Minister.

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve a straight answer,” he ventured. “Did the Prime Minister know his party was behind these fraudulent calls, yes or no?

The New Democrats applauded their man’s strict advisement of the options.

“The independence of the Canadian Electoral Boundaries Commission is fundamental to our democracy,” Mr. Mulcair continued. “Conservatives paid for fraudulent robocalls using a fake company name to misinform voters and manipulate an important part of our democratic system. Worse yet, Conservative Party officials lied to Canadians to try to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. Who will the Prime Minister hold accountable for this fraud?”

Alas, Mr. Harper was unimpressed with Mr. Mulcair’s presentation.

“Mr. Speaker, clearly I reject the accusations in that question,” the Prime Minister clarified. “I think the party has explained this particular matter. As I think the Speaker knows very well, there are electoral commissions in effect to redraw boundaries. Those commissions accept and expect input from parliamentarians, from political parties and from the general public. In Saskatchewan there has been overwhelming opposition to the particular proposals, but we are simply operating within the process as it exists.”

Unbowed by Mr. Mulcair’s experience, Bob Rae tried his own simple question. “Mr. Speaker, in light of the unprecedented effort by the Conservative Party, I presume the government, to gerrymander the riding boundaries in Saskatchewan, I wonder if the Prime Minister would give us a categorical assurance, today, that there will be no special partisan legislation, with respect to this matter but, rather, the government will ensure and guarantee that it will bring in a law that would be entirely compatible with the final conclusions of the boundary commission in Saskatchewan and, indeed, right across the country.”

In this case, Mr. Harper was willing to offer such an assurance. Eventually.

“Mr. Speaker, let me be, once again, clear on the process,” Mr. Harper graciously offered. “Under the law, independent boundary commissions are established. Part of the process, is to get widespread input, not just from parliamentarians and political parties, but from the general public. In the case of Saskatchewan, I am told that some 75% of the submissions made to that commission have been opposed to the current proposals. However, it is the commission that makes the decisions.”

So it is for the commission to decide, but it is apparently for the Conservative party to use that figure of 75% as justification for waging a public political campaign against the commission.

“Some years ago,” the Prime Minister continued, “the Liberals tried to bring in partisan legislation to overturn boundary commission recommendations. We would never do that.”

So the Conservatives will most certainly not do anything to overrule the independent commission, but they will presumably continue to wage a campaign against its conclusions.

“The process allows and encourages the public to make submissions. At the end of the day the commission will make the decision,” Gerry Ritz later explained to the House. “Seventy-five per cent of the submissions they received during the initial process were in favour of boundaries remaining the way they were. We stand with Saskatchewan residents in asking that the commission re-evaluate the work it did and re-establish the boundaries as they have been.”

“Let us talk about Senator Come-From-Away, Mike Duffy, who hits up the taxpayer for $41,000 claiming to live in P.E.I. Then he is an Ontario voter. Then he tries to scam a health card and is turned down. He does not even qualify for the income tax reduction on residency. When was the last time he even mentioned in the Senate the great people of Prince Edward Island?” Charlie Angus wondered aloud, his brow furrowed in mock confusion. “It has to be at least seven months, which is why the people of Cavendish call him ‘Mike Who?’ ”

Obviously the people of Cavendish, those ill-mannered barbarians, should be more respectful and refer to him as Senator Who?

“Instead of trying to defend their buddy,” Mr. Angus finally asked, “will the Conservatives try defending the taxpayer and get $41,000 back from this guy?

The New Democrats stood to applaud this request.

Government House leader Peter Van Loan had the duty of taking this one. “Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times in this chamber, all parliamentarians are expected to maintain a residence both in their home region and here in the national capital region,” he offered.

It will no doubt surprise Mr. Van Loan to learn that the Constitution requires senators to be a resident of the province they claim to represent.

“The Senate is, as we know,” Mr. Van Loan continued, “doing a review of their current rules and ensuring they are properly applied to all senators.”

If Senator Duffy is found to be insufficiently associated with Prince Edward Island, the Conservatives will be put in a difficult spot. Do they ask him to resign? Do they order him to move? Before doing anything rash, they should consider what might be accomplished with a few robocalls. Appeal to the public to pressure the Ontario and PEI boundary commissions to make Kanata part of Prince Edward Island. Squeeze the Ottawa suburb (where Senator Duffy reportedly often resides) into one of PEI’s ridings or make it a new riding altogether. Either way, problem solved: the little island gets to keep its senator. And if redrawing the boundaries improves the Conservative party’s seemingly dismal chances in PEI for 2015, all the better.

Picking up where they left off yesterday, Charlie Angus and Peter Van Loan went another round this afternoon.

Charlie Angus. No wonder the Ethics Commissioner is fed up with these guys over here. We have a minister who was found guilty of breaking section 9 of the conflict of interest law, but rather than coming clean the Conservatives have been hiding behind loopholes, they have trolling the letters of opposition members to obscure the fact that he was found guilty. No wonder the Ethics Commissioner wants the power to be able to fine these cabinet ministers. A simple question, will the Conservatives support the Ethics Commissioner in her desire to strengthen the rules or are they going to try to gut the act to cover up for those insiders who are continually breaking the law? It is a simple question.

Peter Van Loan. Mr. Speaker, the other day I read a letter from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay supporting AVR radio. It might be interesting to note that the president and executive vice-president of AVR actually made donations to the NDP in 2011. This letter, of May 18, 2012, went to the CRTC. He stands here as the ethics czar for the NDP and his main argument is that the NDP should be held to a lower standard of ethics than the Conservative MPs. Perhaps that is what Mary Dawson is talking about.

Here again is the compliance order issued to the Finance Minister after his appeal to the CRTC on behalf of an easy-listening station. The ethics commissioner applied Section 9 of the Act and Annex H of the guide. Section 9 sets out that “no public office holder shall use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder’s private interests or those of the public office holder’s relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.” What’s the definition of a public office holder? Section 2 defines it as follows.

(a) a minister of the Crown, a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary;(b) a member of ministerial staff;(c) a ministerial adviser;(d) a Governor in Council appointee, other than the following persons, namely,(i) a lieutenant governor,(ii) officers and staff of the Senate, House of Commons and Library of Parliament,(iii) a person appointed or employed under the Public Service Employment Act who is a head of mission within the meaning of subsection 13(1) of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act,(iv) a judge who receives a salary under the Judges Act,(v) a military judge within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the National Defence Act, and(vi) an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not including the Commissioner;(d.1) a ministerial appointee whose appointment is approved by the Governor in Council; and(e) a full-time ministerial appointee designated by the appropriate minister of the Crown as a public office holder.

You’ll note that the Finance Minister is a minister of the Crown and that nowhere in the definition is a member of parliament identified as a public office holder.

Annex H of the Prime Minister’s guide explains that “Ministers must not intervene, or appear to intervene, with tribunals on any matter requiring a decision in their quasi-judicial capacity, except as permitted by statute.”

On those grounds, the ethics commissioner found that Mr. Flaherty had erred. Mr. Flaherty explained that his mistake was including his ministerial title under his name at the bottom of the letter, but, in scolding two parliamentary secretaries, the ethics commissioner later clarified that the actual use of the title wasn’t important. In other words, a minister or parliamentary secretary couldn’t pretend he or she was writing as only a member of parliament if they were otherwise a minister or parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Van Loan responses on Monday—see here and here—suggested Mr. Flaherty and the government were merely operating previously with a different interpretation of the Conflict of Interest Act (although there would still be the matter of the government’s own accountability guide). But beginning with his second response on Tuesday and continuing yesterday and today, the Government House Leader seems to be expressing confusion about the standard applied by the commissioner.

Or perhaps Mr. Van Loan means to suggest that the Act, which his government introduced, is illogical. In that regard, if the Harper government would like now to change the rules so that all MPs are banned from such writing letters to the tribunals like the CRTC, there is certainly a case to be made for such a change.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/peter-van-loan-continues-his-search-for-an-ethical-standard/feed/9Joan Crockatt is the new Jonathan Swifthttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/joan-crockatt-is-the-new-jonathan-swift/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/joan-crockatt-is-the-new-jonathan-swift/#commentsWed, 30 Jan 2013 21:48:00 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=344812The newest Conservative MP demonstrated her keen sense of satire with a statement to the House before Question Period this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, everyone has heard the old saying, “don’t …

The newest Conservative MP demonstrated her keen sense of satire with a statement to the House before Question Period this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, everyone has heard the old saying, “don’t talk the talk unless you can walk the walk”. Unfortunately, I do not think the New Democrats truly understand the meaning of this statement. In fact, yesterday, you, Mr. Speaker, had to put the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay back in his place for using unparliamentary language while the NDP ironically tabled a motion to improve House decorum.

Better yet, this motion refers to instances of extreme misrepresentation of facts or position in the House. Canadians are rightly worried about the New Democrats’ misrepresentation of facts and positions. After all, the NDP is the party that has a $21 billion carbon tax in its policy documents in black and white and yet its members spent the fall denying it here in the House. We will continue to expose the NDP’s $21 billion carbon tax that would raise the price of everything.

While the Prime Minister’s Office and Ned Franks explain the reasons for not involving the Governor General in a meeting between the Prime Minister and First Nations leaders, Charlie Angus seems to try to articulate a compromise.

But NDP MP Charlie Angus, whose Northern Ontario riding includes Ms. Spence’s Attawapiskat community, said the Prime Minister should allow the Governor-General to open any future meeting in order to build trust and “dial down the rhetoric.” “I’m concerned about the symbolism if [Ms. Spence] got sick or something happened — I think it would really throw everything off track,” he said. “If [Mr. Harper] sends some message of goodwill, we could ratchet this down a lot.”

This sounds like a proposal to have the Governor General do what he did a year ago at the Crown-First Nations gathering.

There are a couple ways to question this proposal. The first is the practical: Would this be enough to satisfy Theresa Spence and those who are following her lead on this demand that the Governor General be involved? If the answer is no, this proposal is moot.

But even if this would be sufficient to appease Ms. Spence, there is the philosophical question: Is any compromise worth making when it is based on a very problematic understanding of how our democracy works? Is it worth finding a compromise at the risk of perpetuating—or seeming to give into—a very problematic understanding of how our democracy works?

I think I generally lean towards upholding the principles of our democracy and refusing demands that seem to be based on a very problematic understanding our how our democracy works, but if having David Johnston stand up and say a few words (presuming he then takes his leave and goes back to Rideau Hall) would be enough to get past this odd stand-off, I’m somewhat tempted to say go for it and be done with it. (Alternatively, you refuse a compromise, stick with the principled view and assume that this point of dispute will ultimately pass. I suppose this calculation involves judging Ms. Spence’s present and future health and the likelihood she’ll give up her protest or otherwise be fine.)

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/with-a-special-guest-appearance-by-the-governor-general/feed/124#IdleNoMore on the Hillhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/idlenomore-on-the-hill/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/idlenomore-on-the-hill/#commentsFri, 21 Dec 2012 23:16:54 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=331267John Geddes considers today’s demonstration and the Idle No More movement. And David Newland looks at the online conversation.
Charlie Angus writes about Attawapiskat and Theresa Spence.
The question is …

The question is what role will the Prime Minister play this time around? People often describe him as a “brilliant tactician,” but tactics aren’t enough to run a country. From a tactical point of view, he will no doubt assume that Christmas is the worst time to mount a protest because the public’s attention is being diverted to home and family. He might also think that a winter hunger strike will sap the energy of the Chief quickly and bad weather will dampen public support rallies.

Yes, this is all true. But what Mr. Harper needs to understand is that he isn’t the one holding the cards.Hunger strikes are very volatile and potentially divisive actions. They stem from desperation and a belief that all other attempts to negotiate in good faith have been exhausted.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/idlenomore-on-the-hill/feed/1Oliver, Angus and some angry chiefshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/oliver-angus-and-some-angry-chiefs/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/oliver-angus-and-some-angry-chiefs/#commentsWed, 05 Dec 2012 17:21:22 +0000Mitchel Raphaelhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=323726Yesterday leaders attending the Assembly of First Nations annual meeting took their their battle to the Hill. They protested against the budget bill being voted on that night and then…

Yesterday leaders attending the Assembly of First Nations annual meeting took their their battle to the Hill. They protested against the budget bill being voted on that night and then had a spontaneous face-to-face meeting with Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver after they were led into the House of Commons foyer by NDP MP Charlie Angus. Northern Ontario MP Angus said he asked Oliver to meet some of the chiefs and the minister obliged. Some chiefs tried to force their way into the House but were met by security.

Ask around about the attributes of influence in the federal government during Stephen Harper’s rule. The answers will vary widely depending on who’s doing the talking, but certain elements will pop up with intriguing regularity. Just about everyone, for instance, agrees that power these days tilts westward. And, sure enough, the top three on our list—the Prime Minister himself, inevitably, followed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the governor of the Bank of Canada—all hail from Alberta.

Yet Harper had little to do with the rise of Beverley McLachlin and Mark Carney. So is this top-of-the-list cluster of Albertans mere happenstance, or a true sign of a pattern of power? One thing it isn’t, we promise, is a contrivance. Maclean’s writers and editors compiled this admittedly subjective list based on our own combined experience covering Ottawa’s most important people, tested against the sage insights of political strategists, veterans of the public service and lobbyists who make it their business to size up the city’s elite.

What makes one partisan or public servant, public figure or private power broker seem to matter more than another can be mysterious. In some cases, managerial style lifted a figure into our sights, like McLachlin’s subtle touch with the nine egos on the top court, or the way top bureaucrat Wayne Wouters boosts the morale of a public service whose pinnacle he commands. Often power flows in well-worn channels, as through the offices of the finance or foreign minister. Sometimes, though, someone cracks the institutional edifice, and influence streams in unexpectedly. Look at what Kevin Page has done as the first parliamentary budget officer.

Sometimes what matters, at least to us, hardly registers on the traditional scales of influence and power. So we unapologetically assign serious significance to the ability to kick up a fuss in question period or assemble an army of Twitter followers. We believe an ambassador can, if only occasionally, amount to more than the individual whose hand is holding that champagne flute. We insist that an obstreperous backbencher can sometimes matter more than an inconspicuous cabinet minister.

There is no algorithm for tallying up who is important in Ottawa. Yet there’s only one place to begin calculating: from the conviction that the answers, however open to debate, matter greatly. And on that democratic note, welcome to the Power List.

01: Stephen HarperThe decider

Seven years after Jean Chrétien was elected, he called a snap election to keep his finance minister, Paul Martin, from quitting and taking half the Liberal party with him. Seven years after Brian Mulroney was elected, his party was bleeding from both ends to two upstart rivals, Reform and the Bloc Québécois. Stephen Harper will reach the seventh anniversary of his election in January, and there is still only him.

The only cabinet ministers he has permitted to rise are the ones whose loyalty is beyond question: John Baird, Jason Kenney, James Moore. Harper makes all the important decisions. Do foreign takeovers of Canadian businesses get approved? Do trade deals go ahead? Will there be attack ads this week? If there is a decision he doesn’t make, that means it was not an important decision.

Harper’s party is united, his voter base solid, his majority immune to assault from the opposition benches. When Mitt Romney lost the U.S. presidential election, just about every pundit in Canada coughed up a column suggesting the Republicans look north for inspiration and course correction.

Harper has become an elder statesman, elected for the first time only two months after Angela Merkel became chancellor of Germany. A decade after he built the Conservative Party of Canada, he is still the one who defines its mission, its priorities, its tone.

And yet this year he has more often demonstrated the limits of his power than the extent of it.

A year ago, the Prime Minister gave up on Barack Obama when the U.S. President delayed approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. But the American electorate declined to follow suit, and now Keystone’s future is back in Obama’s hands. Harper implemented a resource-export pivot to Asia. But public opinion didn’t pivot with him.

And now Harper, who went into politics to fight the Trudeau legacy, must face the prospect of a 2013 during which (at least after the Liberals finally select a leader in April) he could be facing Justin Trudeau every day in the Commons.

By the time he got to New Delhi at the beginning of the month, Harper was beginning to sound a bit like King Canute in reverse, standing at the shore beseeching a new tide of prosperity to come in. “The world’s economy is moving quickly; Canada and India must also,” he told a World Economic Forum event, urging India to act with uncharacteristic swiftness to conclude a trade deal. “Time and tide wait for no one. We must redouble our efforts. Let us not lose the chance for both of our countries that this moment offers.”

Oh well. He still has that majority in Parliament, which means he still has his budget implementation acts, twice a year at hundreds of pages of changes to the way Canada is governed. Each bill cuts spending, curbs the power of the federal government and limits the ability of any future government to return to an activist agenda. Other leaders build monuments. Harper is working to make monuments harder for any of his successors to build. And he still has the luxury he always wanted on his side: time.

02: Beverley McLachlinThe consensus builder

When she was celebrating 10 years as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada back in 2009, Beverley McLachlin made an optimistic declaration. The rancorous debate over what’s called “judicial activism,” McLachlin told the Canadian Bar Association, was over. Bitter complaining about unelected judges imposing their will on elected governments, she said, had given way to “recognition that, in a mature democracy of rights, both institutions are vital.”

Two years later she was back in front of the CBA, this time thanking the president of the lawyers’ group for sticking up for an independent judiciary after Immigration Minister Jason Kenney accused judges of undermining the system for assessing refugee claims.

The persistence of tension between courts and politicians is a reminder of McLachlin’s power as the country’s top judge. But in her long run as chief justice, she’s made herself a hard target for politicians, especially on the right, who tend to view judges with suspicion. McLachlin can’t be easily pigeonholed ideologically, and under her leadership, the Supreme Court doesn’t neatly divide along ideological lines.

In fact, its two most politically sensitive recent decisions—first blocking the Harper government from shutting down Vancouver’s supervised injection site for drug addicts, then stopping Finance Minister Jim Flaherty from setting up a national stock market regulator over provincial objections—were unanimous. Accusing the court of a left-leaning bias is tricky when even its Conservative-appointed judges sign on to rulings that thwart Tory aims.

How does McLachlin do it? Seasoned court-watchers credit her with a low-key, consensus-building approach to the complex task of managing the nine-member bench. “She never seems in a hurry, but she gets so much done,” says Eugene Meehan, who regularly argues cases before the court as a partner in the Ottawa firm Supreme Advocacy. But Meehan adds that McLachlin’s quiet, conciliatory manner covers “a fire for the law that would burn through a pouring rain.”

In the Western-oriented Harper era in Ottawa, it doesn’t hurt that McLachlin comes from little Pincher Creek, Alta., where she was born in 1943. Her law degree is from the University of Alberta, but she built her career in Vancouver, teaching law at the University of British Columbia before being appointed a judge in 1981, at just 37. She was named to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1989 by prime minister Brian Mulroney, and was made chief justice in 2000, the first woman to hold the position, by Jean Chrétien.

University of Ottawa law professor Adam Dodek says concern for the real-world effects of judgments is one of McLachlin’s defining traits. Dodek points to her court’s carefully calibrated 2010 decision on Omar Khadr, in which it ruled the government had violated Khadr’s rights, but stopped short of ordering actions that might have looked like the judges dictating foreign policy. Making a point while avoiding an outright clash with the politicians is pure McLachlin. “There is no doubt in my mind that this is absolutely the McLachlin court,” Dodek says, “not only in name, but in style and in action.”

While her demeanour suggests an aversion to open conflict, McLachlin doesn’t dodge the tough issues. When Maclean’s asked her in 2010 about the Harper government’s policy of legislating mandatory minimum prison terms for many more crimes, she flatly rejected the underlying presumption that sentences are too often too soft. McLachlin stressed that the Criminal Code requires judges to aim to rehabilitate offenders, whereas critics tend to view sentencing “only through the lens of retribution.”

The issue of mandatory minimums ranks among the more politically charged questions likely to test her court’s ability to use its power judiciously in the next few years.

03: Mark CarneyThe coaxer

At the moment when he announced this week that he would be leaving Ottawa next June for London, the nature of Mark Carney’s singular form of power suddenly came into clearer focus. After all, his successor as governor of the Bank of Canada will, in all likelihood, continue with much the same interest rate policy as Carney. And the new top central banker will likely keep lecturing Canadians to pay down their household debt. But the next gov is almost certain to fall short of Carney’s blend of international clout and near-flawless presentation. By now, of course, everybody knows that Carney is moving on to become governor of the Bank of England. By his own assessment, he’ll be leaving a Canadian scene where the key political and public-service players were largely in accord behind a clear economic strategy for a more challenging British playing field. Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will miss the credibility Carney brought, even to a photo-op. They might not miss the way he often outshone them. He’s signed on for a five-year hitch in London. That means he’ll only be 53 when he needs to make his next move, so Carney and Canada might have yet have a future.

04: Thomas MulcairThe thorn

The notion that the NDP leader rates a high position on this list irks Conservative strategists. They argue that opposition leaders lost any real power when Harper won his majority in 2011. But focusing on Thomas Mulcair’s inability to fell the government or vote down its legislation would be to take too narrow a view of his influence. By shoring up the NDP’s dominant position in Quebec (bequeathed to him by Jack Layton), Mulcair largely forces the Tories to look elsewhere for growth. By criticizing what he views as lax regulation of the oil sands, he compels the Conservatives to play to their Alberta base, when they might otherwise be cultivating themes that give them a better chance broadening their support beyond. His basic political competence makes the hill the Liberals are climbing that much steeper. Indeed, everywhere on the tactical playing field of federal politics, Mulcair’s presence is palpable. That’s power.

05: Nigel WrightThe conciliator

The morning papers had brought bad news—a prominent Montreal businessman delivering a scathing critique of a new government policy. And the consensus around the conference table in the Prime Minister’s Office was that the reply should be in kind: a few well-placed leaks to the media to put the spotlight on the executive’s own shortcomings to serve as a warning not to mess with Ottawa. Or at the very least, soften him up as a prelude to negotiations.

It was one of the first decisions that Nigel Wright faced when he took over as Stephen Harper’s chief of staff in January 2011. He took notes as everyone in the room had their say, asking occasional questions. Then he made a statement of principle. Regardless of how things had been done in the past, this wasn’t how the PMO was going to operate on his watch. Instead, the Harvard-educated lawyer turned Bay Street dealmaker went to call the disgruntled CEO. A half-hour later, Wright returned; the man was amenable to talking and had cleared the next two hours of his schedule to work out a deal. The crisis was over by lunchtime. “There were no political fireworks, and no one was damaged any further. The issue was just dealt with,” says one Conservative who was in the room. “That’s the way Nigel is: a success-oriented, behind-the-scenes guy who understands how to play the game, but isn’t out to win at any price.”

Harper’s government hasn’t always been inclined to play nice. Previous chiefs of staff Ian Brodie and Guy Giorno were known for their sharp elbows. But when Harper lured Wright away from a career as a managing director at buyout firm Onex Corp., it signalled a change. The 48-year-old financier has deep Tory roots and had worked in Ottawa before, as a junior aide to prime minister Brian Mulroney, but he’s a bridge-builder, not a demolition expert, the kind of guy who appeals to his boss’s wonkish, policy-driven side, rather than his fascination with the darker political arts.

“I think he’s brought stability to the PMO,” says Charley McMillan, a York University economist who served as Mulroney’s policy guru—and Wright’s boss—in the mid-1980s. “What a prime minister needs most is a surprise-free environment. And Nigel’s not the kind of guy who gets in a panic.”

Recruited as much for his business connections as his management skills, he now functions as a liaison with the country’s rich and powerful. In recent months, he’s met with the CEOs of Scotiabank, BCE, Quebecor, RIM, CN and Vale Canada. However, those ties have also been a source of controversy. In August it emerged he had twice been lobbied by Barrick Gold, a company controlled by the father of a former colleague and friend.

Still, Harper clearly has confidence in Wright’s abilities—earlier this year he raised eyebrows by dispatching his chief of staff, rather than International Trade Minister Ed Fast, to Washington to lobby to join trans-Pacific free trade zone talks. It worked.

The open question in Ottawa now is how long Wright will remain on the job. The two-year leave of absence he took from Onex, and his estimated $2-million salary, will expire at the new year. And with the next election in October 2015 already on the horizon, the Prime Minister will be looking for a long-term commitment.

06: Jenni ByrneThe link

One of the mysteries of power under Harper has been how he manages with so little continuity. He tends to churn through chiefs of staff, communications directors and other key aides faster than most prime ministers. But Jenni Byrne represents institutional memory and connectivity between separate components of Harper’s power structure. She’s the Conservative party’s director of operations, keeper of the campaign-strategy flame lit by her former boss and mentor, the now-ailing Sen. Doug Finley. But she also worked inside Harper’s PMO as director of issues management. Nobody else has done such senior jobs in both the party and the government. She is in effect the ultimate go-between, a pivot point for power. And she’s not just trusted by Harper and other upper-echelon players—her background as a teenaged Reform party activist lends her credibility with the party’s rank-and-file true believers.

07: Jason KenneyThe recruiter

Jason Kenney’s announcements are coming so thick and fast these days that it would be easy to let them blur together: blah blah Jason Kenney blah blah new rules blah. But then you’d miss the peculiar balance he’s struck during the past year as the Harper government’s most hyperkinetic minister.

Watch closely.

“These are the kind of bright young people we are trying to recruit,” Kenney said at the end of October, pointing to international university students standing photogenically behind him at a microphone outside the House of Commons. Up to 10,000 students will get landed immigrant status next year in the Canada Experience Class, a program that admitted only 2,500 in 2009.

A few weeks earlier, Kenney held another news conference to say he was revoking 3,100 fraudulently acquired Canadian citizenships. “We are taking action to strip citizenship and permanent residence status from people who don’t play by the rules and who lie or cheat to become a Canadian citizen.” From 1947 until last year, Canadian governments had only ever revoked 70 citizenships.

It’s a consciously two-track approach Kenney is taking as he makes what Stephen Harper has called “profound, and to this point, not fully appreciated changes to our immigration system.” Some days he rolls out the welcome mat. Other days he plays the enforcer.

“There is no anti-immigration constituency in Canada,” a government source said, explaining what the 44-year-old Calgary minister is up to. “We’re almost unique in the Western world in that there’s no voter support for anti-immigrant sentiment. But there’s a lot of concern about the integrity of the system.” So under Kenney, Canada welcomes as many immigrants each year as under the Liberals—but while it rejects or revokes only a tiny fraction of that number, the rate is far higher than under previous governments.

Kenney’s office is careful to alternate these “pro-immigration” and “pro-integrity” announcements so he never gets too far to one side of the balance he’s trying to strike.

It’s brought Kenney in for criticism, but he has never been shy about a fight. Meanwhile he’s become the Conservatives’ most effective recruiter among immigrant communities, a frequent guest at backbench MPs’ fundraisers, and a power broker whose support will be crucial to any candidate who hopes one day to succeed Harper.

08: Laureen HarperThe secret weapon

Stephen Harper recently joked that his wife has more modest tastes than Mumtaz Mahal, for whom Emperor Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal. Laureen smiled at reporters during their trade trip to India and added, “I’m not waiting until I’m dead.” The exchange showed a rare glimpse of the softer side of Stephen Harper, and the casual banter highlighted how Laureen Harper is increasingly the Prime Minister’s secret weapon.

Mr. Harper, an economist, is judged by critics as stiff and arrogant, while his wife, a former farm girl from Alberta who rides motorcycles, hikes mountains and used to compete at barrel racing, is seen as more fun-loving and down-to-earth. She uses that social power to their advantage. She has opened up 24 Sussex to a range of authors, artists and causes—including Ezra Levant on oil, Merna Forster on Canadian heroines and Nazanin Afshin-Jam on Iran. She brought in Heather Reisman and human rights activists to highlight a campaign on stoning.

Mrs. Harper grew up in a political family and met her husband through the Reform party. She is credited for one of the most deft image makeovers: a loyal patron of the arts, she orchestrated her husband’s appearance with Yo-Yo Ma at the National Arts Centre—he surprised the audience by playing the piano and singing With a Little Help From My Friends. It followed Mr. Harper’s cuts to arts funding and criticism from rich artists who gather at galas, like the ones his wife attends.

“When I was active, she used to discuss politics with Stephen frequently,” says Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to Mr. Harper. “But she never sat in on campaign staff meetings. Her influence was always more in the background. She has always had an understanding with Stephen that she wouldn’t talk about policy in public. This isn’t the United States, where the president’s wife can be a semi-independent political figure and take on political causes of her own.”

That may be changing. Last month, Mrs. Harper gave a speech in the Edmonton-Strathcona riding, where the NDP holds the seat. The event, part of a bid to elect a Conservative MP in 2015, was promoted as her “first-ever major public address to a Conservative partisan event in Alberta,” and a call to “restore our true-blue Conservative colours to the entire federal political map of Alberta.”

09: Raoul GebertThe mobilizer

Back in the early weeks of the NDP leadership race in the fall of 2011, Thomas Mulcair’s campaign seemed hopelessly outgunned by rival Brian Topp’s machine. Then something happened, although at the time few beyond Mulcair’s inner circle knew exactly what. He had recruited Raoul Gebert to manage his bid, and soon began to overtake Topp. After he won the leadership, Mulcair asked Gebert to be his chief of staff. The German-born, Montreal-based organizer was reluctant, but Mulcair refused to take no for an answer. No wonder. Gebert is a seasoned Quebec organizer, and the NDP’s first priority under Mulcair has to be securing its 2011 election breakthrough in the province. His somewhat detached attitude toward Parliament Hill seems to be a tactical advantage. Less caught up in question period and scrums than most, he’s shown more interest in making sure Mulcair travels outside the capital. As well, Gebert is as interested in campaign readiness for 2015 as he is in the daily Parliament Hill buzz. It’s perspective as power.

10: Ray NovakThe gatekeeper

Rarely has a prime minister shown so little interest in surrounding himself with people he’s grown to trust. None of the political aides and advisers thought to be close to Harper from before he won power in 2006 remains in his PMO—except for Ray Novak.

Starting out as Harper’s executive assistant in opposition way back in 2001, Novak basically carried the boss’s bags. Now, he carries some of the government’s most weighty responsibilities and delicate duties. As Harper’s principal secretary, he is, among other things, the key point of contact for foreign governments and provincial premiers. As well, Novak is the guy Harper trusts most to advise him on where he should travel and when.

He is rivalled inside the PMO only by Nigel Wright. While the chief of staff might have more to do with managing the day-to-day affairs of government, the principal secretary manages the moment-to-moment movements of the PM. And there’s history to consider. How to assess the fact that Novak once lived, when Harper was Opposition leader, above the garage at Stornoway? In a regime where personal attachments rarely add up to power, Novak is the standout exception.

11: John BairdThe aggravator

Leaving Canada’s foreign affairs minister off any list of the federal government’s most powerful figures would have been unthinkable under most prime ministers. Not so during the Stephen Harper era. Past foreign affairs ministers, like Maxime Bernier and Lawrence Cannon, didn’t register. John Baird is different. He came to the post in 2011 having already proven himself as an effective partisan slinger during Harper’s minority governments, and as a can-do transport minister. Since taking over at Foreign Affairs, he’s had measurable impact, forging personal bonds with key players abroad. In keeping with Harper’s shift to closer ties with Beijing, he’s viewed as close to his Chinese counterpart. But the edge Baird is known for in the House doesn’t disappear when he travels outside Canada. He scolded the UN recently for being too caught up in its own internal politics. Not everyone likes his style, but Baird has ended a string of foreign ministers who seemed unable to put their stamp on the job. Power can come from refusing to be ignored.

12: Pierre PoilievreThe brat

No backbench MP gets more face time on national television than Pierre Poilievre. At 32, he’s one of the youngest Conservative MPs. The former Stockwell Day staffer is a firebrand economic conservative who often gets sent to cover for ministers in trouble in question period. That he has the Prime Minister’s trust is shown by how unusually free he is to speak. So we decided to let him speak for himself here.

Q: What is political power in Ottawa today?

A: The ability to get things done.

Q: There’s a school of thought that the only person who has that is Stephen Harper.

A: He shares it with people who are working in the country’s best interest. I’ll give you an example. When I met a soldier in my riding who told me his parental benefits under EI had expired during the time he was serving in Afghanistan—and that he couldn’t extend them, even though prisoners can extend their benefits until they get out of jail—I took up the cause. It wasn’t on anybody’s radar in the Prime Minister’s Office or anywhere else. But by being diligent and hammering away at the political and public service decision-makers, we ultimately got a bill that fixed the problem.

Q: What role does question period play in all of this? That’s where most politically interested Canadians see you at work.

A: It’s the most reported-on portion of the parliamentary proceedings. It sets the agenda for public debate. But I think it gets an inordinate amount of attention. There are a lot more substantive decisions on legislation when it’s on clause-by-clause [review] before committee than there are in the daily question period battle.

Q: After the 2011 election, a lot of commentators said, “Holy cow, this Conservative government can do whatever it wants.” Are you feeling omnipotent these days?

A: Absolutely not. Majority government gives you a chance to fully implement ideas, but you still have to defend their consequences. The main difference is that under a minority, if an idea was momentarily unpopular, it couldn’t be implemented because the government could be defeated before the merits of the idea could be understood. Under a majority government, there’s time for an idea to be absorbed. A perfect example is the increase in Old Age Security eligibility. That was a terrific decision. Because it’s not a populist one, it takes time for the wisdom of the idea to be explained.

Q: In QP, you and Alex Boulerice of the NDP often go after each other hammer and tongs. Do you guys ever go for a beer?

A: We haven’t done that, but we do talk in the halls, and I actually kind of like the guy. I just fundamentally disagree with him.

Q: In a lot of circles your image is as the incorrigible brat of the Conservative caucus—cursing at committee meetings, delivering talking points. Were you surprised to develop that kind of reputation?

A: I honestly don’t mind it. I believe everything I say. The so-called talking points I use are most often things I write for myself. I believe in the government I defend, and when I stand up to defend a minister who’s under attack, I believe in the message. People focus on question period, but I dedicate more of my time to policy development. I was the caucus lead on the platform at the last election. But listen, when it comes time to handle the tough political files, I’m happy to do that too.

13: D’arcy LevesqueThe influencer

Is it possible the lobbyist with the most impact in Ottawa actually lives in Calgary? Of course—this is the Harper era. A strong case can be made for D’Arcy Levesque, vice-president of public and government affairs for Enbridge Inc., the company whose proposed Gateway pipeline—which would take oil sands crude across B.C. to be shipped by tanker to Asia—has so powerfully preoccupied the Harper government. Although he’s an energy industry veteran—he helped secure government support that pumped millions into the oil sands—he’s also wise to the ways of politics, as a former adviser to Tory ministers in Alberta’s provincial government. Along with spearheading Enbridge’s clearly close relationship with Harper’s government, Levesque is noted for his courting of elite sympathy through arts philanthropy; he’s the strategist behind his company’s high-profile sponsorship of events at the National Arts Centre, including the Governor General’s Performing Arts Awards, a function much beloved by Laureen Harper. His devotion to the arts, though, is not entirely tactical: Levesque’s mother, who died last summer, was Edmonton landscape painter Isabel Levesque.

14: Jim FlahertyThe steady hand

Only three years ago, he appeared fated to go down as a failed finance minister. Having held the most powerful post in cabinet since Harper formed his first government in 2006, Jim Flaherty is the longest-serving minister (tied with Senate leader Marjory LeBreton). But the financial market meltdown that hit with full force just after the 2008 election, and the recession that followed, threatened to reduce him to a political casualty of an economic catastrophe. After all, he’d promised no deficits—then delivered a gusher of red ink. Yet Flaherty not only survived, he thrived. The massive taxpayer-funded ad campaign that accompanied “Canada’s Economic Action Plan,” and continues to this day, salvaged the government’s popular reputation for reasonable economic management and, by extension, Flaherty’s own credibility as Harper’s point man on the file. These might be trying times, the narrative goes, but Canada has outperformed comparable countries. Flaherty’s Irish smile has weathered into a perpetual look of strain, but he’s remained the Tory face of economic resilience. And he’s settled in for the long haul as the closest thing to an indispensable minister in Harper’s cabinet.

15: Charlie AngusThe antagonist

If there is an art to being an opposition member of parliament, it’s to be found at the intersection of policy wonkery and partisan acrimony. Charlie Angus lives at that crossroads. He delves deep into files like Aboriginal affairs and election spending rules, but sees everything he learns through an NDP-orange lens. He’s also a former rock musician who knows how to perform before a big audience.

The biggest of each day the House is sitting comes during question period. Angus has turned himself into a master of QP timing and delivery. He personally pushed the lousy-housing plight of Attawapiskat, a reserve community in his northern Ontario riding, onto the front pages. More than any other opposition MP, he took media revelations about dubious Conservative robocalling tactics during last year’s federal election and converted the story into many days of QP drama.

For any ordinary MP to succeed in putting himself at the centre of debate on so many days would matter. Provoking the government into taking action, as Angus can boast to have done on multiple occasions, matters even more.

16: Diane FinleyThe reformer

Even her fans don’t claim that the minister of human resources and skill development is a natural charmer. But in the run-up to last year’s federal budget, government sources say, no other minister was so prominent at cabinet meetings. After all, Finley’s sprawling department runs both Employment Insurance and Old Age Security. Harper had targeted both programs for significant, controversial reforms. It’s doubtful he would have tried with a less trusted minister in charge. Finley has come under intense fire from critics on both files, but remains unflappable. Her reputation among insiders is mixed. Tories praise her. Bureaucrats and lobbyists, not so much. She’s married to Sen. Doug Finley, the architect of Harper’s election strategy before he was largely sidelined by illness. But Diane Finley is a force to be reckoned with in her own right, the key voice on the government’s most contentious domestic policy files.

17: Wayne WoutersThe mandarin-in-chief

Maybe it’s fanciful to imagine it matters much that the clerk of the Privy Council, the top federal public servant, was born in tiny Edam, Sask. But in a government that prides itself in thinking outside the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle, and in which Prairie roots confirm bragging rights, it can’t hurt. Appointed mandarin of mandarins in July 2009, Wayne Wouters started running the show when that year’s stimulus spending was rolling out. It was a hectic, anxiety-ridden period for the Harper government. An economist by training, unflamboyant in the classic career public servant mode, he has few detractors. So far. But as the government proceeds with paring public sector jobs across many departments, his reputation will be tested. He’s made a point of cheerleading for the “collective accomplishments” of the public service. There are rumours that he might soon retire, but for now, he remains solidly in place and stolidly powerful.

18: Yaprak Baltac?ogluThe action planner

The toughest test Stephen Harper’s government has so far faced arguably came in the weeks immediately after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled his 2009 budget. Rushed out that January as a global recession took hold, the emergency spending plan earmarked $4 billion for local and regional infrastructure projects and plunged Ottawa back into deficit. The task of shovelling that money out the door fast enough to dull the edge of the economic downturn fell to John Baird, then minister of transportation and infrastructure. But to manage the unprecedented spending spree, he would turn to Yaprak Baltacioglu, his deputy minister and already a rising figure in the federal bureaucracy.

Success in fast-tracking billions in infrastructure spending without major scandal or charges of serious mismanagement boosted both minister and deputy. Baird is, of course, now Harper’s foreign minister. Baltacioglu, as befits a mandarin, keeps a lower profile. Still, among Ottawa insiders her name resonates, even if few can pronounce it. (For the record, it’s YAP-rak Bal-ti-CHOO-lu.) She has a reputation for public discretion but behind-closed-doors bluntness. “What has made her a success is that she’s a straight-shooter. She doesn’t sugar-coat,” says Goldy Hyder, a well-connected Tory with the lobbying and consulting firm Hill and Knowlton.

Baltacioglu was born in Turkey and came to Canada when she was in her early 20s, about 30 years ago (the Treasury Board’s media office would not release her age or say what year she immigrated). She arrived with a law degree from Istanbul University and added a master’s in public administration from Carleton before joining the public service in 1989. She rose through posts in agriculture, environment and the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic nerve centre that supports the Prime Minister’s Office. A few years ago she married Robert Fonberg, now deputy minister of defence. He’s Jewish, she’s Muslim. But as a public-service power couple, they stand out more for their combined clout than their personal profiles.

Harper’s senior strategists have been singing Baltacioglu’s praises ever since she implemented the 2009 stimulus program. When a shake-up of top mandarins was announced in early October, Harper appointed her secretary to the Treasury Board, making her the top bureaucrat at the central agency in charge of the government-wide cost-cutting exercise overseen by Tony Clement, the treasury board president. One Conservative strategist said she is not expected to argue for any strong set of ideas about what parts of government should be trimmed or protected. “I don’t think she has a deeply held agenda,” the strategist said. “She’s something of an opportunist who seizes the moment.” And, not for the first time in the Harper era, Baltacioglu’s moment seems to be now.

19: David RutherfordThe conduit

It’s not unusual for a prime minister, especially after a few years in power, to develop a strained relationship with the media. But Harper’s Conservatives are unique in having been encouraged from the outset—by Doug Finley among others—to regard the mainstream media as their natural, eternal enemy. The upshot is that finding national media figures with truly close relationships to political power in Harper’s Ottawa is uncommonly difficult. But there is an exception. When Harper needs to put the message out to the right-wing faithful, he can count on populist radio legend Dave Rutherford. It’s in Rutherford’s Calgary QR77 studio that Harper regularly finds a comfortable forum for sending a relaxed message to his core supporters. Yet Rutherford doesn’t indulge in empty-headed boosterism. When Harper dropped by to talk last summer, Rutherford raised the issues of the European economy, worrying personal debt levels in Canada and public service cuts. Not an inquisition, but surprisingly substantial for talk radio. For Harper, the value is clear: he gets to convey seriousness without being grilled. For Rutherford, there’s the power of serving as the link between the PM and many of his more reliable backers in his hometown market.

20: Irving GersteinThe fundraiser

The numbers are stark. Since 2005, the Conservative Party of Canada has raised close to $145 million in public donations at the national level. Over the same time, the Liberals managed less than half that sum. The NDP, just $40 million. It is a testament to the Conservative party’s support, but also its biggest advantage in this era of the permanent campaign. And for as long as there has been a Conservative Party of Canada, the chair of the Conservative Fund has been Irving Gerstein.

The party’s fundraising success is not built on the depth of donors’ pockets, Gerstein told the Conservative party convention in 2011, but on the breadth of its donor base. “To raise money successfully, a political party must appeal to a large number of Canadians of ordinary means,” he said. “That is still what some parties do not understand, and that is why some parties are lagging behind.”

The party’s haul is a triumph of messaging, but also technology. One insider notes the computerized lists of contributors Gerstein has overseen are at the core of the party’s system for tapping volunteers and votes. Gerstein credits the party’s database for the election of 40 Conservative MPs during the last election.

The former president of Peoples Jewellers (his grandfather founded the company) Gerstein previously chaired the Progressive Conservative party’s fund. Stephen Harper nominated him for the Senate in 2008. As part of the in-and-out scandal, Gerstein was one of four Conservative party officials charged under the Elections Act. (The charges were dropped when the Conservative party agreed to pay a $52,000 fine.) Ian Brodie, a former chief of staff to the Prime Minister, lauds Gerstein as “the single best political fundraiser any party in Canada has ever had,” one who has seen various changes to fundraising laws and methods over the years. “What’s his secret? There is no secret. He works hard every single day and never lets go of an opportunity to ask,” Brodie says. “Some call him shameless. I call him persistent. I literally don’t know what Mr. Harper would do without him.”

21: Kevin PageThe badger

When Harper appointed the first-ever parliamentary budget officer—a new watchdog over federal spending and economic forecasting—the Prime Minister got far more than he bargained for. On paper, Kevin Page looked like a modestly successful bureaucrat, the sort unlikely to make waves.

As it turned out, Page has been a persistent, productively troublesome critic. (The accidental death of a son several years ago seemed to instill in him a determination to make a difference.) He’s questioned the government’s deficit numbers—and been proven largely right. He’s projected F-35 jet costs as far higher than the government claimed—and been backed up later by the auditor general. Through it all, his blue-collar, Thunder Bay, Ont.-bred ethos proved stubbornly impervious to Conservative ministers’ attempts to intimidate him into docility.

Although his five-year term as PBO wraps up at the end of this year, Page isn’t exiting quietly. He’s demanding details of budget cuts from dozens of government departments and agencies. Treasury Board President Tony Clement, Harper’s point man for the cuts, has slammed the budget officer for exceeding his mandate.

To the end of his term, Page is the embodiment of the power of independence under unrelenting pressure.

22: Justin TrudeauThe social leader

Justin Trudeau has two voices. There’s the rather old-fashioned one that moved so many Canadians when he delivered the eulogy at the funeral of his famous father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in 2000. He reverts to that sort of grand oratory on big occasions, like when he launched his bid for the Liberal leadership back on Oct. 2. But there’s also the far less formal voice that his nearly 170,000 Twitter followers know so well through his frequent tweets on subjects ranging from where he’s headed for breakfast to what he thinks of the latest Conservative policy move.

No other Canadian politician approaches Trudeau’s mastery of social media. His massive following, and knack for the abbreviated form that holds their attention, is his sole indisputable accomplishment so far in public life. After all, he didn’t lead any organization before jumping into federal politics in 2008, and hasn’t landed a major critic’s role in the Liberal opposition caucus. It’s his social-media stardom that underpins his front-running bid for his party’s leadership.

Trudeau holds that the degree to which his party’s most dedicated young activists live their partisan lives in the digital arena is a direct reflection of their discontent with old-style politics. “I think of the rise of social media,” he told Maclean’s, “not as a root cause, but as a symptom.”

There’s no disputing the power Trudeau has tapped into. Still, experts who follow the politics of social media point to drawbacks and pitfalls. Brian Klunder, a Liberal official and public affairs consultant with Fleishman-Hillard, says Trudeau’s casual tweets established a valuable rapport with his followers over the past few years. But now the stakes are higher, the scrutiny more intense. And will voters be more inclined to see Trudeau as a lightweight because of his close identification with the Twitter throng?

These questions, however valid, don’t change the fact that any of Trudeau’s Liberal rivals, and Conservative and NDP adversaries, would pay dearly to duplicate his social-media success. There’s undeniable power in that instant access to an attentive online community. The political story of 2013 might well be the rise of Canada’s first social media-propelled pol to a federal party’s leadership.

23: Alex HimelfarbThe unofficial critic

As a bureaucrat, Alex Himelfarb spent half a lifetime faithfully executing politicians’ orders, a trajectory that peaked when he served as clerk of the Privy Council to Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and, briefly, Stephen Harper.

Then came the surprise. Since he returned in 2008 from a stint as Canada’s ambassador to Rome, Himelfarb has become a leading public critic of Harper-style government, a blogging theorist of effective centre-left opposition.

His Alex’s Blog never mentions Harper by name, but it’s easy to tell he’s not a fan. A succession of Liberal leaders have kept Himelfarb on speed dial, but he enjoys not having a political boss anymore, and it’s the NDP that has most effectively borrowed his emphasis on income inequality as a winning issue for the left.

The government has other critics in the “greying establishment veteran” demographic —finance department retirees Scott Clark and Pete deVries, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge—but it’s Himelfarb’s persistence and focus that make him a standard-bearer for Ottawa denizens who dream of a post-Harper Canada.

24: Stephen WoodworthThe rebel

For a few weeks this fall Stephen Woodworth was something of a maverick. With Motion 312, he called on Parliament to take up the question of when life begins, launching a discussion about abortion the Prime Minister has repeatedly expressed an unwillingness to engage. The debate thrust Woodworth into the spotlight: an illuminated place in which government backbenchers rarely find themselves. What’s more, the resulting vote, which saw his motion shot down, nevertheless exposed a split in cabinet. Ten members of cabinet supported him, most notably Jason Kenney and Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, who also has responsibility for the status of women file. But Woodworth’s motion is just the most obvious in what have been several signs of life from the cheap seats on the government side. Though Tory David Wilks’s opposition to the year’s first omnibus budget bill was short-lived—and embarrassingly withdrawn—there have been other examples of a restive backbench. Mark Warawa followed Woodworth’s motion with a motion opposing sex-selective abortion. James Bezan recently acknowledged his opposition to the proposed takeover of Calgary’s Nexen by Chinese state-owned oil company CNOOC. And Brad Trost has mused vaguely of a proposal that would empower MPs. Yes, a healthy balance between party loyalty and MP independence is still a ways off. But the backbench can’t be ignored these days. Especially not with Woodworth emerging as the standard-bearer for the party’s largely quiet social conservatives.

25: Miriam ZivThe dogged envoy

Relations between Canada and Israel have rarely been as warm as they have become during Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s time in office. Canada consistently sides with Israel at the United Nations, and earlier this fall ended diplomatic relations with Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran. Israel, says Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, “has no greater friend than Canada.”

Israel’s representative in Canada during much of this period has been long-time diplomat Miriam Ziv—though she downplays the role she’s had influencing Ottawa’s policy.

“There’s no doubt that I have ongoing and very good relationships with the ministers in the government. I can engage with them, talk with them, raise issues, and see how things can be done. And I find the doors open,” she says, noting that she has a particularly good relationship with John Baird but rarely talks to Stephen Harper. “But I must say the friendship is not dependent on a personality. I cannot attribute it all to myself. But I definitely hope that I have added onto this very special relationship that is based on shared values, on really understanding the fact that we are a democracy in a hostile, non-democratic region.”

Prior to her posting in Ottawa, Ziv served as assistant deputy minister for strategic affairs in Israel’s foreign ministry, where she focused on Iran and its perceived nuclear threat. This was a priority issue for her when she arrived and remains so—but in recent days it has been supplanted by the escalating violence between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

When not dealing with security threats, Ziv works to increase trade and other ties between Canada and Israel. It’s not an easy job, she says. She tries to convince to convince academic and business leaders to visit and see what opportunities may exist. “I’m out all the time. I’m in many ways tireless,” she says. “This is what my bodyguards tell me.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/25-most-important-people-in-ottawa/feed/12Why do we have an Intergovernmental Affairs Minister?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-why-do-we-have-an-intergovernmental-affairs-minister/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-why-do-we-have-an-intergovernmental-affairs-minister/#commentsThu, 08 Nov 2012 21:41:46 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=313086The Commons: Time for Peter Penashue to justify the existence of his portfolio

The Scene. It is not necessarily Peter Penashue’s fault that he is the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. And it is not necessarily Mr. Penashue’s fault that the existence of the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister is something of a mystery. But so long as Mr. Penashue is the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister it is for him to justify that existence.

Indeed, to accept the job is to take on something of an existential crisis. To be the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister is to consider why we have an Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. It has been this way for some years. And it is something Stephane Dion—a former Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, but one who had an identifiable job description—began to ponder a year ago.

“Mr. Speaker, is there a Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in this Conservative government?” he asked last December.

“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if this government even has such a minister,” he sighed last March.

Mr. Penashue might’ve had only to contend with Mr. Dion’s fussiness were it not for the questions about the accounting practices of his election campaign. Such questions have now led to those larger questions.

“Mr. Speaker, on matters of justice in the provincial government, maybe the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs could work with the provinces to try and help solve some of these problems, because the Prime Minister has been alienating the provinces, even refusing to attend an upcoming first ministers meeting in Halifax. In fact, he will not even sit down with the premiers to discuss our shaky economy,” the NDP’s Robert Chisholm mused this morning. “Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs be attending the first ministers meeting in Halifax? Will he give us some idea about his plan to correct the problems in the relationship between the provinces and the federal government?”

It was the Justice Minister who stood to respond to this, boasting that he and the Public Safety Minister had met with their provincial counterparts just last week.

Charlie Angus took his turn. “Mr. Speaker, we are really trying to help the minister from Labrador, but he is not really doing much,” he declared. “He gets a limo, a driver and lots of staff.”

“You sound envious!” chirped a Conservative.

“He gets a very generous pay from the taxpayer and for that he is supposed to be able to stand and explain himself,” Mr. Angus continued. “But we will go with something simpler. Why was 79% of the travel expenses as minister spent in his own province? That is on top of the $18,000 in free flights he used in the campaign. We have a simple question, is he using his ministerial dollars and taxpayers’ dollars to perpetually campaign around his riding?”

Mr. Penashue stood to take this one. “Ohh!” mocked the opposition in faux delight.

“Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to strong relations with the provinces and territories based on true respect for their jurisdictions,” the minister dutifully read from a card in his hand. “I work with my counterparts to ensure that a strong relationship continues to grow. I also make it a priority to ensure that our government is doing its part in fostering jobs and growth in Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada. That is what we do and that is what we will continue to do.”

Mr. Angus segued from this into a general query about the ethics of Conservative practices, which gave Government House leader Peter Van Loan opportunity to proclaim shame on the opposition side. Alexandre Boulerice followed with a denunciation en francais and then Pierre Poilievre stood to invoke Mr. Angus’ vote on the long-gun registry.

Mr. Penashue might’ve thus been done for the day, but a few moments later Liberal MP Scott Andrews stood with a metaphor. “Mr. Speaker, we all know that the member for Labrador is drowning in his election irregularities,” he ventured. “The management of the relationship between the federal government and the provinces is a major job and the minister is simply not doing his job. His own website shows only three meetings with provincial counterparts, and that was all in 2011. God only knows what he has been doing in 2012. He has been ripping off taxpayers by not doing his job.”

There was much outcry on the Conservative side at the uncouth nature of the charge.

“Will the minister admit to not doing his job and resign immediately?” Mr. Andrew asked, ridiculously.

Amid some confusion on the government side and some heckling from the opposition side (Mr. Angus seemed to suggest that Mr. Poilievre, whom he referred to by the nickname “Skippy,” might help the minister), Mr. Penashue stood to take this, pausing a moment before expressing some disappointment.

“Mr. Speaker,” he said, “sometimes I just cannot believe how rude and how bullish those people can be.”

Mr. Poilievre made a good show of displaying consternation as he and various Conservatives applauded.

“Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong relationship with provincial and territorial governments. I meet with counterparts regularly and focus on the strength of the province and growing Canada’s economy. New exploration and investment are occurring across Canada, especially in Labrador,” Mr. Penashue explained. “In my role as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs I get to share these success stories with people from coast to coast to coast. I am working hard to ensure that all Canadians benefit.”

Spreading the good news and pronouncing shame on the opposition. It’s as good a job description for a cabinet minister as any.

The Scene. Of all the festive games to be played on Halloween, shaming committee chairs is somewhat less messy than leaving a bag of flaming dog poop on a neighbour’s doorstep, but decidedly less fun than bobbing for apples. Alas, under the stodgy rules of parliamentary decorum, it was the best the NDP could offer this afternoon.

The New Democrats have been occupying themselves these days with attempting to convince various committees to take up study of C-45, the government’s latest budget bill. The Conservatives, soon after tabling the bill in the House, had said that they would allow the bill to be studied at 10 committees. The Conservatives vowed they would move a motion at the finance committee to do just that. But the New Democrats were apparently keen to see those studies commence post haste and so have been proposing motions hither and yon. Each of those efforts seems to have been stymied. And so now the New Democrats get to claim great umbrage.

“Mr. Speaker, this is simple,” Megan Leslie explained this afternoon. “A motion was proposed, we went in camera, and the motion never came out again.”

Ms. Leslie wondered if the chair of the environment committee—Conservative MP Mark Warawa—might stand and confirm that he was going to be scheduling hearings on C-45. To respond though stood Transport Minister Denis Lebel, who assured Ms. Leslie of the validity of the budget’s changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Jean Crowder tried her luck, wondering if the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee—Conservative MP Chris Warkentin—would endorse a study of budget bill amendments to the Indian Act. To respond stood Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan. Phil Toone asked to hear from the chair of the fisheries committee—Conservative MP Rodney Weston—but instead heard from Mr. Lebel.

Finally, when the NDP’s Rosane Doré Lefebrve asked to hear from the chair of the public safety committee, Government House leader Peter Van Loan decided he had enough of this game. Standing with a significant stack of papers in his hand, Mr. Van Loan attempted to pronounce shame on the official opposition.

“Mr. Speaker, the government is asking several committees to scrutinize the legislation, but I always find it interesting when the NDP members say, ‘Do as we say, not as we do.’ They complain that this bill is too big, but when the NDP does budget bills in Manitoba, they are omnibus bills,” he protested.

There were chuckles from the New Democrats.

“When the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the government in Quebec, they had a budget implementation bill 468 sections long, 383 pages,” he continued.

“Woah!” sang various Conservatives in mock shock.

“The Leader of the Opposition says, ‘Do as I say, not as I do,’ ” Mr. Van Loan concluded.

While the Conservatives heckled, the New Democrats insisted on continuing with their chosen game. Robert Aubin asked to hear from the chair of the transport committee. In response, Mr. Lebel stood and invoked a carbon tax.

When Sadia Groguhé stood and asked for a response from the chair of the immigration committee, Mr. Van Loan pointed down the government’s front row at Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. Mr. Kenney, though, pointed back across the room at committee chair David Tilson. Apparently by the rules of ministerial precedence in pointing, Mr. Tilson was now compelled to stand. “Mr. Speaker, surely the member is not asking me to overrule the decision of the committee,” Mr. Tilson protested. “If that is what she is asking me to do, the answer is no. The committee spoke, and that is the answer.”

Charlie Angus stood then to make the final move, suggesting that the Conservatives were attempting to protect Tony Clement from questions about the navigable waters around his riding. Here though it was Mr. Van Loan who stood, with an urgent bulletin in hand.

“Mr. Speaker, while the opposition continues to complain about the size of the bill, I do have to get up and correct myself,” the House leader explained. “I earlier quoted the length of a Quebec budget implementation bill as 383 pages. Unfortunately, that is only the English version of the budget bill of the Leader of the Opposition when he was in the Quebec government. When we have it bilingual, as ours is, it is actually 778 pages long, far longer than any budget bill from this government.”

“Woah!” the Conservatives cried, even louder this time.

By the rules of Mr. Van Loan’s game—whereby one’s guilt is rendered moot when similar guilt is pronounced on one’s opponent—this was apparently supposed to count as a win.

Unfortunately for Mr. Van Loan, a budget bill of 778 pages would measure as only the second largest on his government’s record—more than a hundred pages shorter than the 904-page budget implementation act that received royal assent in 2010.

Perhaps if Mr. Mulcair promises to keep any NDP budget under that page length he can claim ultimate victory.

The Stats. The budget, 10 questions. Foreign investment and veterans, six questions. The Navigable Waters Protection Act, three questions. Employment insurance, ACOA, immigration and fisheries, two questions each. Ethics, the military, trade, the census, the economy and the aluminum industry, one question each.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-how-big-is-your-budget/feed/18The Commons: Like a lawfully authorized bridge over navigable watershttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-like-a-lawfully-authorized-bridge-over-navigable-waters/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-like-a-lawfully-authorized-bridge-over-navigable-waters/#commentsTue, 30 Oct 2012 21:24:09 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=309360It is to the Macdonald government's eternal shame that it did not enact a proper FAQ in 1882

The Scene. And so the House returned to the drama, intrigue and tragedy of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Oh if only the Marquess of Lorne—John George Edward Henry Douglas Sutherland Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll and fourth governor general of Canada—had known what he had wrought when he signed into law “an Act respecting Bridges over the navigable waters, constructed under the authority of Provincial Acts” on May 17, 1882. One wonders if he would have hesitated to put his signature on the bill if he’d known that one day its reform would be used to mercilessly mock the president of the Treasury Board.

“Mr. Speaker, members opposite must be getting dizzy from all the spin around their talking points on the Navigable Waters Protection Act,” the NDP’s Megan Leslie sighed this afternoon. “First, they claimed that the changes had nothing to do with environment. They were just reducing red tape for cottagers. However, even Conservatives knew that this law actually did have a role in environmental protection, although they did try to deny it by rewriting websites, and history.”

It is to the Macdonald government’s eternal shame that it did not enact a proper FAQ when it passed the act in 1882. So much of this month’s confusion might’ve been avoided.

“Yesterday, the finance minister changed his tune again and he said that these changes were actually about austerity,” Ms. Leslie claimed, feigning confusion. “So, what is the real answer here? Why is the government gutting environmental protection from the bill?”

Transport Minister Denis Lebel stood and, in his deliberate English, lamented for the great blight that the old bill had become over the last 130 years.

“Mr. Speaker, for years provinces and municipalities have asked us to cut the red tape associated with the Navigable Waters Protection Act,” he insisted. “The act has created a bureaucratic black hole, holding up simple projects that do not impede navigation. Under our plan only projects likely to offset navigation require approval to changes about navigation.”

Ms. Leslie now appealed though to partisan geography. “Last night the truth was exposed because these changes were actually politically driven,” she reported. “Eighty-nine per cent of the protected lakes and rivers are found in Conservative ridings, so whoever decided what bodies of water were protected sure seemed to have a riding map handy. Canadians deserve better than Conservative preferential treatment of their friends. Why are the Conservatives making environmental protection a privilege of the few?”

Mr. Lebel stood and appealed to the kind words of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. “That is about navigation,” he concluded. “We are doing the right thing.”

Jean Crowder stood and wondered why various waterways in British Columbia were no longer to be protected. What of the Cowichan? The Campbell? And the Bella Coola? Mr. Lebel stood and referred her to the kind words of the Canadian Construction Association. “We want to help the country develop projects not for small, small rivers or small places where we do not have to consider the water,” he attempted to explain.

Across the way, Thomas Mulcair laughed.

Then it was Charlie Angus’ turn, the NDP MP afforded an opportunity to taunt his old friend Tony Clement. “Of the 30,000 lakes across this great country, only 97 will be protected, almost all are in Tory ridings and 12 are in the riding of the gazebo king, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka. He protected Lake Rosseau that is home to Hollywood millionaires. He protected Lake Joseph where a cottage will set one back a cool $5 million,” Mr. Angus sang. “I love Muskoka, but does the minister really think that exclusive lakes of millionaires are worthy of more protection than the lakes in the rest of Canada?”

Across the way, Mr. Clement grumbled at Mr. Angus, then leaned over to say something to Mr. Baird. It is apparently Mr. Clement’s fate that the G8 Legacy Fund should be his curse, so that even when he is perhaps entirely innocent—and no evidence of wrongdoing has yet been offered in this case—the gazebos will be used to imply guilt.

Mr. Lebel now appealed to objective data and analysis. “Mr. Speaker, data from the Canadian Hydrographic Service’s nautical charts, Statistics Canada data on freight movement and historical data from the Navigable Waters Protection Program was used to create the list,” he testified. “That is science talking and we will continuing working this way.”

Once more Mr. Mulcair laughed.

Mr. Angus went on and went further, off into the realm of the unfounded. “How about we pull out the clauses of the bill?” he wondered aloud. “We could set up a new bill perhaps called the Goldie Hawn Property Preservation Act. Even better, we could call it the Protecting Millionaire Buddies of the Muskoka Minister So He Can Get Re-elected Act. How about some navigation there?”

Mr. Clement shook his head, appearing rather unimpressed.

“Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities applauds the federal government for the introduction of amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act,” Mr. Lebel informed the House. “We are doing the right thing. Our transport department is working on navigation. That is what we are doing.”

Mr. Mulcair threw up his hands and laughed at the Transport Minister, now verging on giggly.

The Stats. The Navigable Waters Protection Act, seven questions. The economy, six questions. Taxation, foreign investment, immigration and ethics, three questions each. Unions, veterans, the F-35 and arts funding, two questions each. Mortgages, the budget, search-and-rescue and the aluminum industry, one question each.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-like-a-lawfully-authorized-bridge-over-navigable-waters/feed/14Navigating the farce, Joy Smith and Royal Galipeauhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/navigating-the-farce/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/navigating-the-farce/#commentsTue, 30 Oct 2012 17:36:43 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=309252An interesting exchange from the very end of yesterday’s debate on the budget.
Charlie Angus. Mr. Speaker, I had a great deal of respect for Jim Prentice. There was a …

An interesting exchange from the very end of yesterday’s debate on the budget.

Charlie Angus. Mr. Speaker, I had a great deal of respect for Jim Prentice. There was a man who stood up in the House and did not misinform people. He was a man one could say would never lie. Jim Prentice in 2009 stood up as part of the throne speech and said that the government would put a price on carbon. The present Minister of Foreign Affairs went to Montreal and said that the government would open a carbon trading institute in Montreal and “put a price on carbon”. Either they were making that up, they were lying or they thought the Canadian people were stupid, but that was the policy the government ran on: that it would put a price on carbon. I see the bobbleheads who are now repeating this misinformation, the lie about the so-called carbon tax, when the government had told the Canadian people that it was putting a price on carbon I would like to ask that hon. member, what happened to the commitment made by Jim Prentice, an honourable man in the House? Was that just cynicism on the government’s part or was he making it up?

Joy Smith. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Prime Minister would never tax the public in any way, shape or form to that end. The fact of the matter is that I have never before been called a “bobblehead” and I take exception to that kind of analogy. I have had nine years of university. I have raised six children. I do not consider myself a bobblehead. I consider myself an intellectual person who works hard to raise the standard of everything I do, and I am saying great kudos to the government and our Prime Minister, who has protected this whole country from financial ruin when a lot of other countries have experienced economic downturns.

Dan Harris. Mr. Speaker, following up on the point that my colleague raised, Mr. Prentice made his comments in response to the Speech from the Throne.The Speech from the Throne actually did say that the government would put a price on carbon, and that price was $65 a tonne. If we take the total output, that would actually mean a $45 billion tax on carbon, which is more than double what the entire Conservative caucus is saying we are pitching. How do we square that circle?

Joy Smith. Mr. Speaker, how I square that circle is that we are living in the year 2012 and the Prime Minister has never, ever said anything about putting a tax on carbon. It is the NDP carbon tax that would raise groceries. It is the NDP carbon tax that would increase gas prices. That is—

Royal Galipeau. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I both ran in 2008 against a carbon tax. The party that ran on the carbon tax was relegated to a reduced caucus in the opposition. They are now stuck in the third corner. It is true that we talked about carbon trading with the United States. The United States would not trade. We cannot trade with ourselves, so that is the end of it.

The problem for Mr. Galipeau and Ms. Smith is that their party and government now consider “carbon trading” to be the same thing as a carbon tax. And while Mr. Harper didn’t talk about putting a tax on carbon, he did talk about putting a price on carbon. And so far as the Conservative party and the Harper government are now concerned, a price on carbon is a tax on carbon.

(There could be a discussion to be had about whether cap-and-trade should be pursued in Canada if the United States is not willing to do likewise—something Mr. Galipeau seems to suggest—but it’s a discussion that has been rendered moot by the Harper government’s primary arguments that putting a price on carbon is a carbon tax and a carbon tax is a terrible thing.)

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canadians-are-smarter-than-this/feed/2Mitchel Raphael on Elizabeth May’s fear of flying and NDP tank topshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/mitchel-raphael-on-mays-fear-of-flying-and-tank-top-contests/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/mitchel-raphael-on-mays-fear-of-flying-and-tank-top-contests/#commentsTue, 11 Sep 2012 15:04:01 +0000Mitchel Raphaelhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=289682Elizabeth May’s fear factor
Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May… is gearing up for the three by-elections (yet to be called) that she hopes could double her caucus of

Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May is gearing up for the three by-elections (yet to be called) that she hopes could double her caucus of one. She feels the Greens have a chance in Calgary Centre, the riding formerly represented by Conservative Lee Richardson, who resigned to work for Alberta Premier Alison Redford, and in Victoria, which became vacant after NDP MP and deputy Speaker Denise Savoie stepped down for health reasons. One of the advantages of the Victoria riding for May is that it borders her own riding, and she won’t have to get on a plane to help with the campaign. Flying can be a problem for May. “I’m too afraid of flying to sleep,” she says. When she takes the red-eye from B.C. to Ottawa she is pretty much up for 24 hours—a skill, she notes, that has its perks: “That’s why I’m so good at voting all night.”

Tankers not tank tops

Over the summer, NDP deputy leader Megan Leslie, the party’s environment critic, was raising awareness about environmental issues surrounding the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project. While in British Columbia, her fellow NDP MP Nathan Cullen introduced her to Greer Kaiser, a local activist originally from Nova Scotia, the province that Leslie represents. Leslie connected Kaiser with local Halifax environment groups (the Atlantic chapter of Sierra Club Canada, the Ecology Action Centre and the Atlantic Canada Sustainable Energy Coalition) and the duo brought their pipeline-awareness message to a barbeque called “Tankers vs. Tank Tops.” Participants were asked to wear creative tops for the cause. Leslie had a multicoloured tank top and then put on a T-shirt, given to her by the organizers, that said, “No pipeline. No tankers. No problem.” Liberal MP Geoff Regan attended the event but did not wear a tank top.

NDP talent night

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair declared that his party’s caucus meeting in St. John’s, this week had to be “fun.” Accordingly, the provincial brewers’ association arranged a welcome reception promoting local breweries, and O’Reilly’s Irish Newfoundland Pub organized a musical night, featuring MP talent of the likes of Charlie Angus and Andrew Cash, who were both part of the ’80s punk band L’Étranger. Asked whether he’d ever go non-partisan and perform with piano-playing PM Stephen Harper, Angus said: “I’d have to learn the [Rolling Stones’] Sympathy for the Devil. I could do the woo-hoo lines. So take that as a ‘no.’ ” After the caucus meeting, the party planned to fan out and visit all the province’s ridings.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/mitchel-raphael-on-mays-fear-of-flying-and-tank-top-contests/feed/0Jack Layton tribute in Torontohttp://www.macleans.ca/general/jack-layton-tribute-in-toronto/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/jack-layton-tribute-in-toronto/#commentsThu, 23 Aug 2012 15:53:12 +0000Mitchel Raphaelhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=285623The square in front of Toronto's city hall was packed for Dear Jack, a tribute to the late NDP leader

Liberal MP Scott Andrews has formally requested that the ethics committee be recalled to hear from Dean Del Mastro.

“Mr. Del Mastro says he wants a process put in place by which he can clear his name,” said Mr. Andrews. “By proposing this meeting, the Liberal Party is providing Mr. Del Mastro the opportunity, with full Parliamentary immunity, to respond to these very serious allegations. This is a process that he has been asking for and we hope that he will put his money where his mouth is, agree to appear and provide the documents that he claims will exonerate him.”

As Kady O’Malley notes, Mr. Andrews needs three more members of the committee to second his request before the committee can be recalled, but it appears unlikely that the NDP will support Mr. Andrews. Charle Angus tells me he is happy to talk with Mr. Andrews about this proposal, but he is not sure how effective and appropriate a committee hearing would be—would it, for instance, draw enough witnesses to explore the charges involved?—and he is concerned about providing Mr. Del Mastro with a platform to speak with immunity.

If this is about a gong show then count me out. I want to know that we’re getting a serious investigation of what happened there and it’s done fairly. And I also don’t see the point of giving a forum to allow someone who is under investigation by Elections Canada, or potentially by the Director of Public Prosecutions, to walk in, say what they want to say in a majority-controlled Conservative committee and then walk out with immunity.

Mr. Angus wrote to the Justice Minister today to propose that the various allegations be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Below, the text of that letter.

Dear Hon. Robert Nicholson,

I am writing with regard to the growing allegations of illegal campaign contributions to Dean Del Mastro’s 2008 election campaign.

In addition to previous reports around a personal cheque and possible overspending on voter identification work, recent reports in the Ottawa Citizen[i][ii]have raised further questions concerns about the legality of some campaign contributions by employees of Deltro Electric Ltd. to Mr. Del Mastro’s election campaign. With these growing allegations, including eyewitnesses, we are concerned the issues surrounding this campaign financing scheme have gone beyond the potential violations of the Elections Act.

We believe these alleged offences fall under federal jurisdiction, potentially crossing several federal laws. Those laws and sections that could be in violation include:

· Conspiracy to commit fraud over $5000 Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada

· Making a false claim in a return Section 239(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act

· Collusion to circumvent contribution limits and concealing the source of a contribution, Section 405.2(1) and Section 405.2(2) respectively of the Canada Election Act

At this stage I propose that this matter be referred to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) and the RCMP Commercial Crimes Unit for further investigation and other law enforcement authorities, as appropriate.

According to his mandate, The DPP is responsible for providing prosecutorial advice to law enforcement agencies on investigations that may lead to prosecution under federal laws and for prosecuting criminal offences under federal jurisdiction. It is with this mandate that I believe inclusion of the DPP is appropriate to ensure that all law enforcement agencies are directed accordingly in their investigations.

In the wake of the Sponsorship Scandal, the office of the Director of Public Prosecution was established to oversee these types of prosecutions and ensure freedom from possible or apparent political interference.

Given the evidence already made public and the possible involvement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, it is not only within your mandate to refer this issue to the independent office of the DPP, I believe it is your responsibility to do so.

These are seriously allegations involving a senior member of your government and I trust you will ensure that the investigation, and the laying of charges if appropriate, are done free of any possible conflict of interest.

These allegations must be investigated not just for the sake of the public interest, but to maintain the integrity of the democratic process. Above all else, the criminal justice system must prevail – if crimes were committed the perpetrators must be held to account.

The Scene. “Mr. Speaker,” Liberal MP Scott Andrews declared, “there is no more denying the facts.”

Apparently fun time was over. Our reckoning, or at least someone’s reckoning, was at hand.

“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is under active and serious investigations by Elections Canada for election fraud,” Mr. Andrews reported. “How can the Conservative member for Peterborough conduct himself as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and hold his position on the ethics committee while he is being investigated for breaking the rules at Elections Canada?”

This was not quite Mr. Andrews’ question.

“My question is to the member for Peterborough,” he continued, seeming concerned that the member for Peterborough be the one to respond. “Why does he not do the honourable thing, step aside as the Prime Minister’s private parliamentary secretary and step aside from the ethics committee while he is under active investigation?”

Duly, Dean Del Mastro did stand to speak both for himself and of himself.

“Mr. Speaker,” he quipped, “I did not know that there was anything private about me being the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.”

Indeed, the use of the term “private” seemed odd here. Perhaps Mr. Andrews believes that as the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary, Mr. Del Mastro serves as Mr. Harper’s butler.

“I think the member has served on committee long enough with me to know a couple of things about me,” Mr. Del Mastro posited. “One, I serve with integrity and conviction. While the member and I have not always agreed, he does know of those qualities about me.”

Objectively speaking then, Mr. Del Mastro is a fine and upstanding gentlemen. Possibly the finest individual in the history of the dominion. Though perhaps we’ll have to wait for Jason Kenney to say so to be sure.

“Mr. Speaker, Helena Guergis was removed from cabinet and thrown out of the Conservative caucus based on mere allegations to the Prime Minister by some private eye,” she recalled. “The parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister is facing a serious investigation by Canada’s independent election authority. I ask the Prime Minister, why is the member for Peterborough still his parliamentary secretary and why is he the government’s spokesperson on election fraud?”

Now, granted, the Liberals did once call for Ms. Guergis to be removed from cabinet, but not specifically over whatever that private eye alleged. So this question was not entirely ironic.

The Prime Minister was very far away from this place, but Mr. Del Mastro was apparently done for the day. Instead, Pierre Poilievre, the Prime Minister’s previous butler, took this one. “Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister has already indicated that as long as four years ago he filed documents with Elections Canada with respect to the 2008 campaign. They were audited, approved and he has not heard anything from Elections Canada ever since, nor have we seen a single scintilla of evidence to the contrary,” Mr. Poilievre reported. “What we do know is that the Liberal member for Guelph made illegal and false phone calls to his constituency, a fact which he was forced to concede after he was caught red-handed. We will take no lessons from the sponsorship party on these matters.”

So there. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but one wrong does mean the wrongdoer can never again suggest impropriety on the part of someone else. It is the law. More or less.

The NDP’s Charlie Angus stood and noted that it had been Mr. Del Mastro who had been assigned the task of defending the Conservative side against “allegations of widespread voter fraud.” “We now learn that he is, himself, under investigation. So, given the very serious nature of these allegations, it has compromised his ability to do his job,” Mr. Angus surmised. “Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, remove him from his position while this investigation is under way?”

This too was taken by Mr. Poilievre, who stood and repeated his points about Mr. Del Mastro’s conduct. “However,” he pivoted, “what we do know is that just this week, the NDP, yet again, had to accept guilt for breaking the law in accepting illegal union donations. What we do not yet know, because its leader will not reveal, is how much illegal dirty money did it take and when and how much will it be paying back.”

The Conservatives seem to enjoy this a great deal.

Of course, another thing we know is that the Conservative Party of Canada pleaded guilty in court last fall to breaking election law during the 2008 campaign and that the Conservatives declared that pleading of guilt to be a “big victory.” In that sense, perhaps Mr. Poilievre should’ve congratulated Mr. Mulcair.

“Mr. Speaker, it is a general rule in this House that when that members stands, whoever he is defending has been benched. So, I guess that is our answer. He has not been put on the backbench until this investigation is complete,” Mr. Angus shot back.

But there was apparently more. At least so far as Mr. Angus was concerned.

“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is named in court documents for questionable election spending with Holinshed Research Group. In 2009, Holinshed received $125,000 from the Canada economic plan,” Mr. Angus reported. “So, who signed off on this expenditure and when? And will they show us the GeoVote application that Canadian taxpayers paid for? Where is it?”

Mr. Poilievre mounted another show of outrage.

“Mr. Speaker, they ask the same question again and again, but they refuse to answer the obvious questions that Canadians are posing to them,” he ventured. “They received illegal donations from unions, in contravention of the law. The only thing that we do not know, because yesterday the leader of the NDP refused to reveal it, is how much illegal money it took and whether it is actually going to pay it back. On this side of the House, we follow the rules. Why can they NDP not?”

The Conservatives stood to applaud. But the New Democrats, laughing, did so as well, apparently impressed with Mr. Poilievre’s chutzpah.

For weeks the Conservatives have been attacking the NDP online and with press releases entitled, “Get to know Mr. Mulcair’s NDP shadow cabinet.” In one release, ethics critic Charlie Angus, who went after the government for $16 orange juice, was attacked for changing his vote on scrapping the long-gun registry. Another highlights Treasury Board critic Mathieu Ravignat as someone who ran for the Communist Party of Canada in 1997. The features appear on mulcairsndp.ca alongside pictures of NDP MPs from the parliamentary website. “It’s like a comedy,” says NDP House leader Nathan Cullen. But he also flagged it to Speaker Andrew Scheer in an informal conversation. Cullen says those are taxpayer-funded pictures being used for partisan attacks—a misuse of government services. “If you have the courage of your convictions, then pull out your Visa.” So far the Conservatives have not launched attacks directly against Thomas Mulcair himself. Cullen says his plan is to continue to be upbeat and put out positive messages in the spirit of Jack Layton. When Cullen first became House leader he got a cake from Government House leader Peter Van Loan at their first meeting. Talk about a mixed message, jokes Cullen: “If you are going to be mean, then be consistently mean.”

The Punjabi Peter Mansbridge

Last week when the House was not sitting, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney did the rounds of ethnic media. One stop was the Gaunda Punjab Radio and TV program hosted by Joginder Bassi, who Kenney calls the “Peter Mansbridge of the Punjabi community but with hair.” When Kenney arrived at the station, he was greeted outside by Bassi’s people. Once inside, he was presented with blue flowers, which he gave to one of his staffers, Marlee Mozeson. Bassi has been doing his show for 30 years. He’s watched as the Punjabi community has shifted more to supporting Conservatives than Liberals over the years. Bassi says Kenney’s introduction last year of the “Parent and Grandparent Super Visa,” which allows qualified family members to make multiple visits over 10 years, has been well received by the Punjabi community. After the interview, Bassi asked Kenney to attend a special Punjabi day at Canada’s Wonderland. “Do I have to go on the roller coasters?” Kenney asked.

Will 2014 be the year of the brain?

Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan was given the Pioneer in Healthcare Policy Award from the Society for Brain Mapping & Therapeutics. The organization says she is receiving the award for “creating legislation that has impacted research funding and better health care delivery in Canada.” Past winners of awards from the society include Ted Kennedy (2009) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (2008). Duncan has been working on getting the House to pass a motion to declare 2014 the Year of the Brain. “Thirty years ago we looked at the heart, and now you can get a heart valve or even a new heart,” says Duncan, a medical geographer, who is also pushing for a national strategy on dementia.

Speech begins in tears

Minister for Status of Women Rona Ambrose hosted a reception for the launch of Aruna Papp’s book Unworthy Creature:A Punjabi Daughter’s Memoir of Honour, Shame and Love, which was written with Barbara Kay, a columnist with the National Post. Papp’s book details her journey of abuse and torture in the name of family honour. Ambrose has been a huge backer of Papp and held a press conference on honour violence with her in 2010. Ambrose volunteered at women’s shelters in the 1990s. At that time the issue of domestic violence was still difficult to talk about openly. Now those who abuse their spouses are shunned. She hopes to see that kind of evolution with society’s treatment of honour violence as more women like Papp speak out.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/capital-diary-4/feed/0Mitchel Raphael on the Frum family and an MP’s rapper-actor sonhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/mitchel-raphael-on-the-frum-family-and-an-mps-rapper-actor-son/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/mitchel-raphael-on-the-frum-family-and-an-mps-rapper-actor-son/#commentsFri, 25 May 2012 21:07:01 +0000Mitchel Raphaelhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=260514Frum gets a conservative welcome, and Joyce Murray's son is up for a Drama Desk Award

Sen. Linda Frum held a special reception on the Hill for her brother David Frum, a journalist, writer and former speechwriter for George W. Bush. The occasion was the launch of his first novel, Patriots, the story of an aide who works for a distinguished U.S. senator. The book is dedicated to his sister. One PMO staffer noted that the man shown on the cover looks a lot like Anthony Weiner, the former congressman who tweeted body pictures that reflected his last name. Conservative Sen. Nicole Eaton told Frum his book had been recommended to her by several people “who couldn’t put it down.” When Frum introduced her brother she joked it was “nice for my brother to be in a town where he is still a conservative.” David Frum’s criticisms of the Republican party have made for a “difficult time,” she said. “There have been some tensions.” One of his most honest critics has been his wife, Danielle Crittenden. She adores this book but Frum told of how harsh she’s been on others, especially the first draft of The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush. Crittenden said of the draft: “Is it too late to give the advance money back?” At the launch of this book, Crittenden spoke of the sex scenes in Patriots. She said one friend described reading the sex scenes, because he knew the author well, as “like watching your father dance.” Among the many senators and staffers in attendance was Stephen Harper’s principal secretary Ray Novak, a man rarely spotted on the Ottawa social circuit. Frum signed several books while standing and at one point needed to put down his glass down. Instead Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella was happy to bear his cup. “You learn to not grow attached to any of this stuff,” said Kinsella of his important position.

MP guarantees best lullabies

Ontario Conservative MP Terence Young is expecting his first grandchild on June 6. Neighbours have already loaned Young a crib and playpen so the baby can stay at their place. Young’s daughter, Madeline Hubbard, is having a girl, so the excited grandfather has already purchased many articles of pink clothing. Young says his granddaughter will get the best lullabies. Hubbard is the artistic director of the Opera Jeunesse Music & Theatre Academy. Young says his whole family is musical. The MP, along with his four brothers, all sang in their father’s church choir. His father, George Young, was a rector at St. Anne’s Anglican Church in Toronto, which is famous for murals painted by three members of the Group of Seven: J.E.H. MacDonald, F.H. Varley and Frank Carmichael. Young’s brother Scot Denton was in several rock bands and currently teaches acting at Sheridan College in Oakville, Ont. Surprisingly, Young says he has not been tapped to lead O Canada when it is sung in the House each Wednesday. Often parties try to find more musically inclined members like the NDP’s Charlie Angus, a two-time Juno Award nominee, to start the national anthem.

MP’s rapping son

Liberal MP Joyce Murray will be in New York on June 3 for a special theatre awards ceremony. Her son, rap artist Baba Brinkman, is up for a Drama Desk Award in the category of outstanding solo performance for his one-man off-Broadway production The Rap Guide to Evolution. The Drama Desk Awards pit Broadway, off-Broadway and off-off Broadway plays against each other and votes are cast by members of the media. They are like the Golden Globes before the Oscars. Aside from performing the show in New York, Brinkman has also done it for medical conferences as well as at a military base. The production’s website notes his “project owes its origins to the geneticist Dr. Mark Pallen, who specially requested ‘a rap version of the Origin of Species’ for Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday in 2009.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/mitchel-raphael-on-the-frum-family-and-an-mps-rapper-actor-son/feed/0Q&A: Nathan Cullenhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/qa-nathan-cullen-2/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/qa-nathan-cullen-2/#commentsThu, 03 May 2012 19:56:45 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=256814The NDP’s new House leader and I chatted on Tuesday about decorum, Question Period reform and the budget implementation act.Q: On this issue of decorum, because it gets so …

The NDP’s new House leader and I chatted on Tuesday about decorum, Question Period reform and the budget implementation act.

Q: On this issue of decorum, because it gets so bogged down in what people mean by that, are you talking about heckling? Are you talking about comments made during questions, during answers? Are you talking about personal attacks? When you talk about decorum, what do you mean?

A:Yeah, all these things are rolled into one. I wanted to start with what I hoped was the easiest piece, which is when groups of MPs refuse to be quiet, where the Speaker has asked them a couple times and they’re just carrying on like a bunch of drunken frat boys. That we publicly give the Speaker the authority to start taking questions away as a form of punishment. Because one group of MPs will goad another group into it and then soon you just have total chaos. I mean, there’s nothing wrong with a hard-hitting question, there’s nothing wrong with the odd comment coming from a member. Sometimes they’re very funny. I mean a Conservative yesterday said, I’m going to hold my breath until the Liberal party gets better, and of course there was some back and forth across the aisle with me and Baird or the leader, because it was a funny thing to say, right? Because he’s going to hold his breath forever and that’s the joke. I’m not looking to cut into that. That actually helps relationships. What we’re talking about is when this sort of mob mentality takes over. You tend to get those really personal attacks and insults in those moments. So I think one leads to the other, but I’m not presenting this as a silver bullet. I think this is a culture that we’ve created and to shift it we need to start to change the trend lines.

Q:Are you specifically referring to, for instance the Veterans Affairs Minister today complained about the Liberals and there have been complaints made about the Liberals in the House, it seems, periodically. Is that the sort of behaviour you’re talking about?

A: No, I think everyone’s done it, right? Perhaps not typically, I don’t claim any righteousness on this. I’m not saying that we’re perfect. And we have improvements to make. Everyone’s done it. And it’s not particular to any group. But I’m hoping that there is actually a, well, near-silent majority of MPs who don’t like it and want it to be better. It’s not a very inviting place to folks who are interested in maybe getting into politics. And it doesn’t say much for the respect we have for one another when that’s what it looks like. It goes up and down, I would say. There are some days that are better than others. Today started well and then went badly and who knows what tomorrow will be like? The Speaker’s cut a few people off, in statements, and been congratulated roundly by members in the House. I think we just need more of that. I think when we slide over into behaviour that we would never, ever do outside of the House of Commons, we need to be reminded of who we represent.

Q:And so your hope is that he’ll take questions away from parties?

A: Yeah, it’s sort of like a soccer referee. You get a warning and you want to be fair. But I think that will allow for more self policing. I think it’ll allow for, within parties, if you lose a question because I’m being loud, you and I are likely going to have a conversation, right? Because I’ve just caused you harm or the party was trying to get up on an issue and now they can’t because there’s three or four MPs or more who just can’t control themselves. It can’t all be in the hands of the Speaker, it has to be in the leadership of each party. Hope over experience, eh? You keep trying these things. I’ve been a bit disappointed. There’s a bit of cynicism on this coming from some of the other leadership spokespeople that are saying, Well, until the NDP is perfect you shouldn’t say anything. And it’s like, well, if we’re waiting for a party to be perfect before we have a decent conversation in the House of Commons, it’ll never happen. Like, either you’re into changing things or you’re not, you’re satisfied.

Q:Not to now cast aspersions on the NDP, but to take one example from yesterday and compare it to today, has for instance Charlie Angus been told not to refer to Tony Clement as the Muskoka minister anymore?

A: No. I mean, sometimes these things are also funny. I don’t mind humour. It can make your point in different ways. He does happen to be from Muskoka, by the way. The government took great offence to naming part of the fellow’s riding, I don’t know why, but regardless, I think they’re feeling the insinuation that he may be only the minister of Muskoka. I mean, I think there’s a line out there. And I think it’s very subjective. And difficult. I’m not looking to be the language cop, either. But we also know when the place is out of control. When the Speaker is on his feet for half of Question Period. And I think there’s a carryover effect, I really do. If you’re in a screaming match with somebody, how are you meant to go to the committee that you have in 20 minutes and try to work together? It’s not going to happen.

Q:Michael Chong, last Parliament, put those substantial QP reforms before the House. Is there any interest in pursuing anything like that?

A: I have some interest. I’m open to suggestions. Not just from MPs, but from Canadians. This only works, we only get better at this, if Canadians care. And express themselves to MPs from all sides. So in terms of the different reforms Michael suggested, I thought some of them were very interesting. I don’t have a mandate from my party yet to go out and pursue this or that. But I want to be explicit that we’re open to the conversation.

Q:Moving on to the other matter of the budget bill, I think concerns have been raised on all sides of the opposition about it. Is there anything the NDP is planning to do about it?

A: We’re looking at options. I mean, the government is absolutely abusing its power on this and are showing that they have no faith in their policies because they’re burying them into a budget, which is not how a budget is supposed to work at all. If they were confident, these would all be stand alone conversations. But they’re not. It’s not easy, with a majority that is comfortable abusing their power, but it is something that we have to consider. And we’ll consider any option that we can. Because these are some fundamental changes. Profound effects on our quality of life and environment. As somebody who is directly impacted by one of these changes, in terms of the place I represent, this thing might as well be called the pipeline bill because it’s crafted at every level to ensure that the public and the science can’t stop pipelines from happening.

Q:What can you do?

A: It seems that with the unbridled power that the majority has given this party, they’re just so easy to use it and thinking that if they can get away with it in Parliament, by the way our Parliament is structured, then they should just do it. But there’s this other group out there called Canadians who didn’t give these guys a mandate to do these things. So what can we do? Certainly there’s work in the House, but a great deal of what we need to do is outside of Parliament, on social media, in town halls. And there is obviously a strategy coming from us to warn people about what’s coming. Because we see these things, as destructive as the budget was, this supplemental piece, the implementation act is as bad or worse because the effects are so long term. They cut a service here or they misplace government spending there, you know some of those effects are over a year. These are 50, 100 year implications.

Q:Is the NDP prepared to commit to not using omnibus legislation were it in government?

A: Omnibus is a really broad thing, right? Sometimes you have three pieces of crime legislation you put into one and that’s an omnibus. I think our commitment to being transparent about what we’re doing and using appropriate tools to do it and not hiding things is a a commitment that we have. You can’t just blanket statement say, we don’t do omnibus, because there’s going to be moments where it’s perfectly right to do it and actually better for public policy. Three things are connected so you put them in one so the conversation is held with the same witnesses, not three separate times, you know what I mean?

Q:But could you move back to the days when the budget bill was—

A: A budget bill?

Q:Yeah, 12 pages.

A: Well, let’s put it this way, we’ve offered enough scathing criticism over this that it would be hard for us to ever adopt these Conservative tactics.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/qa-nathan-cullen-2/feed/4The Commons: Incivility is in the eye of the beholderhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-incivility-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-incivility-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/#commentsMon, 30 Apr 2012 21:50:39 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=255967Three days after invoking Hitler to mock the NDP, the Conservatives were claiming the high road

The Scene. Thomas Mulcair had asked the government side to account for its recent adventures in military procurement and John Baird had stood and enthused about supporting the troops and now Charlie Angus was on his feet with a segue.

“Mr. Speaker, speaking of non-answers,” he said, “the Canadian Association of Journalists has just voted the Conservative government the most secretive in Canadian history.”

Journalists being among our society’s most respected and revered professionals, this condemnation on its own seemed certain to chasten the government, but Mr. Angus was not through.

“Look at the minister it put in charge of spinning the openness. The Muskoka minister ran a $50 million slush fund through his constituency office and then buried the documents and is refusing to tell Canadians what services are on the chopping block,” he reviewed. “The Prime Minister promised Canadians he would establish open and accountable government. Why did he break that promise?”

Tony Clement, the aforementioned minister, rose to respond, but Peter Van Loan, the Conservative House leader, stood too. With a cross look for Mr. Van Loan, Mr. Clement returned to his seat.

“Mr. Speaker, it was seven minutes ago that the House leader for the NDP stood up and talked about a new decorum,” Mr. Van Loan sighed. “He talked about putting an end to name calling, treating people with respect, calling them by their proper titles and proper names. It lasted seven minutes. The repeat offender is at it again.”

Directly across the way, Nathan Cullen, the aforementioned NDP House leader, who had indeed chosen today to take a stand on civility, sat and watched and shook his head.

“I encourage the House leader for the NDP to get his own side to fall in line,” Mr. Van Loan finished.

Precisely three days after his side invoked Hitler to mock NDP questions about this country’s mission in Afghanistan, Mr. Van Loan was claiming the high road. Or at least crying hypocrisy.

If Mr. Angus was shamed by this response, it only barely showed. ”Mr. Speaker, this is the Conservatives’ sense of entitlement. They expect us to be subservient,” he shot back. “Our job and their job is to be respectful of the taxpayer, which returns me to the fact that they made promises to the Canadian taxpayer and they have turned their ministerial departments into black holes of accountability, which is why the Minister of International Cooperation was able to hide dubious amounts of lavish spending. The Prime Minister’s obsession with secrecy is allowing his ministers to break the rules time and time again. Why is the government committed to misrepresenting spending, hiding the books and misrepresenting Parliament?”

He perhaps meant “misleading Parliament,” if that’s not too uncivil an allegation to make.

Mr. Clement was allowed to take this one. “Mr. Speaker, they did no such thing,” he declared. “In fact, it was this government, at the very start of our mandate, in 2006, that created the Federal Accountability Act, the most sweeping anti-corruption legislation in the world today.”

“Follow it, Tony!” shouted someone from the Liberal corner, the Liberals not bound by any commitment to decorous behaviour.

“We have made great strides, of course, in delivering more information to Canadians,” Mr. Clement proclaimed next, staring down the concept of irony, “not only to the opposition members and to the media, but to Canadians directly. There are 272,000 data sets on line right now, at data.gc.ca. That is our commitment to opening the government, and it will continue.”

Perhaps among those 272,000 data sets, just waiting to be found, is the proper lifecycle costing of the F-35.

Nearer the end of this afternoon, the civility of this place was challenged once more. ”Mr. Speaker, back in March 2005, when the previous Liberal government attempted to place the redefinition of a subsection to the definition of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act within a budget bill, the then opposition leader and current Prime Minister was outraged. He said, and I quote. ‘This is a backdoor way, a dangerous way of proceeding. It would not allow any parliamentary approval or discussion whatsoever. It is completely unacceptable,’ ” Elizabeth May reported from the furthest corner of the room.

Raising her voice, the Green MP held aloft the phonebook-thick budget bill.

“If changing one subsection to environmental law through a budget bill is completely unacceptable,” she begged, “why is changing hundreds of sections of a dozen environmental laws acceptable to this Prime Minister?”

Here, technically, Ms. May had violated the rules of this place, specifically the ban on the use of props.

Without complaining about that breech, Mr. Van Loan stood to respond. “Mr. Speaker, it has been a longstanding practice, of course, for budget implementation bills to actually implement budgets,” he quipped, winning guffaws from his side of the room.

“Our budget is focused on the economic growth and long-term prosperity of the country. That includes moving forward with responsible resource development so that we can ensure prosperity for generations to come,” he continued, now apparently feeling the need to muse aloud. “Canada has in great quantities the resources the world needs and the emerging developing world, countries like China and India. The development of those resources are the key to the prosperity, wealth and social well-being of Canadians for generations to come. That is why we are moving on it and that is why it is in the budget implementation bill.”

By the most simple understanding of what we apparently wish our House of Commons would sound like, this was perfectly civil.

The Stats. Government spending, eight questions. Military procurement, five questions. The Canada Revenue Agency, ethics and immigration, three questions each. The environment, foreign aid, fisheries, SNC-Lavalin and aboriginal affairs, two questions each. Old Age Security, homelessness, food safety, Internet access, employment, agriculture, arts funding and the budget, one question each.

Amid more questions about Bev Oda’s trip to the land of expensive orange juice, Peter Van Loan stressed to the House that Ms. Oda had paid all “inappropriate” expenses.

Noting this, the New Democrats and Liberals duly went after Mr. Van Loan’s understanding of appropriateness.

Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, earlier today in question period we heard the government House leader claim that the Minister of International Cooperation had repaid all inappropriate expenses. I have a simple question. Could the House leader tell us if he believes that wasting $1,000 a day on a chauffeur driven limo, when a free shuttle was available, is an appropriate expense, yes or no?

Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I have been clear and the minister has answered on this and has apologized. Inappropriate expenses were paid. As I have said, our approach is always to respect taxpayers’ dollars, ensure that travel is undertaken at a reasonable cost. A reasonable cost to us is one that is significantly lower than that under the Liberals, and that is what we have been doing.

Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, we need to put this question to the Minister of International Cooperation. I asked her a straightforward question. Will she pay back $3,000 in frivolous limousine expenses? She refused to answer. I am giving her a second chance because I was disturbed by the House leader who said that she is only on the hook for appropriate costs. Will the minister pay that money back, or does the Prime Minister believe that her luxury lifestyle overseas is perfectly appropriate for Canadian taxpayers to foot the bill? Will she pay, yes or no?

Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this numerous times. The minister has repaid the inappropriate costs. I think that is what the public would expect, that is what the opposition would expect and I do not think she would be asked to repay costs that were appropriate…

Bob Rae: The issue is not complicated, Mr. Speaker. I will ask the Prime Minister to respond to it. The apology from the Minister of International Cooperation and her payback came only eight months after it was discovered and made public. I would like to ask the Prime Minister; he is responsible for these standards, is $1,000 a day for a limousine for a minister in London, when such a cost was clearly not necessary or required for the job, appropriate or is it not appropriate? Why will the Prime Minister of Canada answer that simple question?

Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already answered this question, as has the minister, as have I, and that is that the minister has repaid all inappropriate funds.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/define-appropriate/feed/4A scouting report on Team Mulcairhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-scouting-report-on-team-mulcair/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-scouting-report-on-team-mulcair/#commentsFri, 20 Apr 2012 12:30:19 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=253704Here again is the roster for Thomas Mulcair’s shadow cabinet. What to make of it? Here are several observations.
-First, the obviously big promotions go to Megan Leslie (who stays…

Here again is the roster for Thomas Mulcair’s shadow cabinet. What to make of it? Here are several observations.

-First, the obviously big promotions go to Megan Leslie (who stays with environment, but becomes a deputy leader) and Nathan Cullen (who becomes House leader). Both are confident, impressive, fresh-faced MPs who are quick on their feet and under the age of 40 (Mr. Cullen’s 40th birthday is in July). Very interesting to see them put not just in prominent positions, but positions of leadership. Your premature, baseless, futile, wild-eyed “next leader of the NDP” speculation probably starts somewhere here.

-That’s a rather large number of people with titles: 78 out of a caucus of 102. Granted, the Conservative cabinet numbers 39 and the Prime Minister named another 28 parliamentary secretaries, so the sides are somewhat close to even. Put the two teams together and they represent just less than half of the House.

-The shadow ministers of finance, justice, human resources, transport, aboriginal affairs, public works, industry, immigration and the environment—nine of the top files—are women.

-Peter Julian seemed to step to the fore in the wake of Mr. Mulcair’s election. The day after the budget, Mr. Julian was given five consecutive questions in QP (off the top of my head, I’m not sure that in my five years here I’ve seen anyone but an opposition leader, rising at the start of QP, afforded that many opportunities in a row). And, of course, he then dominated the budget debate. In this new shadow cabinet he moves from finance to natural resources. Which probably says something about both the prominence that file is going to take on and how much more we’ll be hearing from Mr. Julian.

-If finance is the top issue, Ms. Nash will be continue to be among the most prominent NDP MPs (she was also finance critic under Jack Layton). And presumably that means she’ll be near the forefront as the NDP tries to make an economic case for itself going forward.

-Ruth Ellen Brosseau becomes deputy critic for agriculture. Another step on the way to her becoming prime minister.

-Matthew Kellway and Christine Moore have their mandate to pester Julian Fantino renewed. Jack Harris returns to defence with the minister struggling. For at least as long as the F-35 is a matter of concern, that trio figures to be prominent.

-The English-French team of Charlie Angus and Alexandre Boulerice on ethics is also maintained.